Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded for two votes last night and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 183--yes; No. 184--yes.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the Pitts amendment. Devoting significant resources to the biggest health threat in the world, the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, is an excellent use of taxpayer dollars, as long as we focus on prevention efforts that work. For example, the people of Uganda have had great success controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS, and they did it with a comprehensive program that did stress abstinence and fidelity, but also emphasized the importance of using condoms. The Pitts amendment would move significant dollars away from that proven model by providing $5 billion to strictly abstinence-only programs. It will push aside proven comprehensive programs in favor of questionable models designed to appease a right-wing constituency. Let us not miss the opportunity to do good by misspending precious resources on abstinence-only programs. We should not condemn more people to death by AIDS by tying hands with ideology. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pitts amendment and strongly support H.R. 1298.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I thank again the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). I thank the chair of the Committee on Resources for the support.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand that Chairman Pombo has agreed to accept this amendment. I want to express my gratitude for his support. I will be brief and submit my full statement for the Record, but I do want to explain the purpose of this amendment to the House. This amendment would strike the bill's language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory the oil and gas resources of the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including those areas now off-limits to new drilling. This would undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas. President George H.W. Bush initiated, and President Clinton extended, moratorium protections for these coastal waters. And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for 20 years. This section of H.R. 6 pushes to open these fragile coastal waters to the possibility of new drilling. There is widespread bipartisan support both nationally and locally against new drilling in these areas. Those of us who represent vibrant coastal communities like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), cosponsors of my amendment, know that our coastlines are too economically viable to risk more drilling. I want to thank my colleagues from Florida who have worked for years in a bipartisan manner on this issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and other members of the Florida delegation have been extremely helpful with this amendment. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his support of this bipartisan amendment and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for helping get my amendment made in order. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment, with Mr. Miller and Mr. Davis of Florida, to strike Section 30220 from the bill. This section contains provisions that would seriously undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas. Section 30220 would circumvent the longstanding, bipartisan moratoria on new oil and gas drilling in particular areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive moratorium ending new drilling off the entire U.S. West Coast, East Coast, Southwestern Florida, and Alaska's Bristol Bay. This action was met with acclaim by the coastal communities it encompassed and, indeed, all of America. In 1998, President Clinton extended President Bush's executive memorandum protections to 2012. And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for twenty years. President George W. Bush endorsed the Congressional moratoria in his FY04 budget. State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush, California Governor Gray Davis and former New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman-- have endorsed the moratoria. The bill, however, lays the groundwork to reverse this broad bipartisan consensus by promoting activities--including exploratory drilling and seismic studies--in the OCS, including the areas that have been off limits to new oil and gas drilling for years. Supporters of Section 30220 argue that it only calls for taking inventories and studying available resources on the OCS. But I must ask . . . what is the purpose of this provision if not to open up the OCS areas to new oil and gas drilling in the future? What is it we would do with this taxpayer funded ``information gathering,'' if not use it to pursue new drilling? In fact, the bill requires the Secretary of Interior to make, and I quote, ``recommendations . . . that would lead to additional OCS leasing and development . . .''. Mr. Chairman, we already know that large reserves of oil and gas are located in federal waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico, which are currently open to oil and gas leasing. According to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service, this area contains between 60 and 80 percent of the nation's economically recoverable oil and gas available in the entire OCS off the United States. So, the protection of sensitive coastal areas through the longstanding moratoria still leaves the vast majority of the nation's oil and gas located on the OCS available to industry. Section 30220 would also examine how laws, regulations, or programs might ``restrict or impede'' development of resources identified in the study. In addition to determining how the OCS moratoria protections constrain development, this bill would erode the legitimate rights of coastal states and local governments to have a say in offshore and onshore development as embodied in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA is a critically important law that allows the state to weigh in on projects that may effect the state's coastal zone. Oil drilling is just such an activity. The CZMA is the very law that the State of California recently used to halt the development of 36 undeveloped leases off my district in Central California. California's right under CZMA to review the development plans was upheld in Federal court last year. This affirmation of CZMA's importance led to the Bush Administration's recent decision to stop pursuing the development of the 36 leases and to instead pursue a negotiated termination of the leases. Section 30220 would weaken a state's right under CZMA. This section also disregards the adverse economic impacts proposed oil and gas activities would have on coastal states and local coastal communities and it fails to consider the effect of these activities on the environment and living marine resources. Moratoria areas should not be compromised by controversial seismic surveys and other invasive technologies, like exploratory drilling. These technologies are inappropriate within moratoria waters and would undermine the longstanding congressional oversight of these areas. For example, high-decibel geophysical activities using sharp seismic pulses have been shown to damage fish stocks and to interfere with marine mammals. Under the OCS Lands Act, existing uses of the sea and seabed and oil and gas development are required to be balanced. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not meet that goal. Mr. Chairman, despite the overwhelming support of the moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the OCS, H.R. 6 pushes to open fragile coastal waters with the provisions in Section 30220. Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly--in strong bipartisan voices--to protect their state's sensitive coastal resources and productive coastal economies. These coastal areas are just too economically valuable to risk more oil drilling. It only takes one accident or spill to devastate the local marine environment and economy. Finally, the House of Representatives has voted twice in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida and California. Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted for my amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to end new drilling off Central California. The House spoke in a strong, clear voice against the developoment of those 36 leases. In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities. A vote for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment to HR 6 is a vote for the same principle--a vote to protect environmentally and economically valuable coastal areas from new drilling. Mr. Chairman, we need to reject these attempts to weaken existing protections for our coastal waters and communities. By adopting this amendment, we continue to preserve America's most treasured coastal areas and we honor and support the protections afforded to the Outer Continental Shelf and our coastal communities through the longstanding moratoria. I urge support for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that those of us speaking for this amendment represent a bicoastal, bipartisan consensus on its behalf. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from 67 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives with a strong statement opposing the language in the underlying bill and in support of this amendment. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 8, 2003. Hon. William Frist, U.S. Senate, Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Thomas Daschle, U.S. Senate, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, House of Representatives, Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington,

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina that progress has been made since the original presentation that the administration put forth before the House of Representatives. I would stand before the Members as a Member of Congress, but also as a first responder covered with the full protection of the Federal Government; and look forward to an opportunity, now it will be in the future, perhaps, when I can go among other first responders in our Nation with the full assurance that their protection and their compensation is as great as my own. This compensation package is only as good as the confidence that it inspires within our first responder community, these folks we ask to be heroes. So I make the request to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and to my colleagues in Congress that we must monitor this program as this piece of legislation is unanimously passed here in this body. We should keep track of it. If it does not work in its present form, we should make the commitment that we will revisit this. Again, this is a program that is only as good as it will be resulting in the goals that the administration has set before the Nation in terms of its bioterrorist protection.

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill which the Congress should pass shortly was going to include a smallpox vaccination compensation program. Now it is being presented for unanimous consent. For many months I have worked closely with the community of first responders. Many of them are nurses. I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who have worked with many other Members of this body to make this program, this compensation program as good as possible. And when we beat a bad bill, which was on the suspension calendar a few days ago as we did, then it gives us an opportunity to improve the program as it was presented. That is what has been attempted to do. Great efforts have been expended and have resulted in marked improvements on the woefully inadequate proposal that the administration initially put forward. I salute again my colleagues who have worked hard from within this body to represent the needs of our first responders as they anticipate and step forward to become a part of the shield against bioterrorist attack. The administration, however, was difficult in this area. I am not convinced that this end product which is before us today really will inspire enough confidence in nurses to make the vaccine program work. However, again, I reiterate that there are improvements in the initial bill that were put forward. But the process back and forth from the White House to the House of Representatives was very much in the arena of parsimonious, as the progress that was made came in bits and pieces. It felt to the community of first responders as if they were being nickeled and dimed. And now, with the product that we have, the nursing community, many of the people who will be the first responders, many of them tell me that the safety net provided in the bill before us today still has large holes in it. And it is told to us that the administration has refused to go any further than what is in this bill. Now, time will tell us if this proposal succeeds, and the proof is actually not right here in this body but out in the community, in our homeland security efforts, in our communities where firefighters, police officers, EMTs, nurses will be asked to roll up their sleeves to become heroes on behalf of us all. If they feel confidence that the government will stand behind them with a good compensation package, they will be more inspired to do this. I wish I could be more confident. However, again I remark that there has been progress made. For example, I myself was recently asked by the Capitol physician to be a first responder here in the Congress. For that reason, I have been asked to get a smallpox vaccination myself; and I am presently consulting with my doctor, as I should do, and with other medical experts about the advisability of this. But if I do take this vaccine and something goes wrong, I know that my family and my dependents will be taken care of because I am covered by the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Under the bill that we will pass today under unanimous consent, a nurse in Santa Barbara, a firefighter in any community across this country who takes a vaccine to serve his or her country, may not have that same confidence. So this goes beyond the consideration of a particular vaccine; it really gets down to how we value our first responders and what we are asking them to do on behalf of their country. Many have said that on 9/11 we crossed through a threshold in this country, and life has been different ever since. We now face the prospect lurking every single day, the possibility of a terrorist attack. One of the real threats that we face as a nation to which we desire to protect ourselves is the threat of a bioterrorist attack. We saw that as the anthrax situation came upon us. Who are the first responders who are called upon to answer the call in the event of such an attack? These are those who work and live among us, ordinary citizens asked now by their government, by their President, to take on extraordinary responsibility. For many, life goes on as normal. They take the vaccine and nothing will happen. But for a few, and a very few, a drastic reaction could happen. There is a risk to this act of patriotism that we are asking our fellow citizens to take on. I want us to be, with every measure within us, standing behind them; so that for that handful of people who have life permanently altered for themselves and are never able to be the breadwinner for their family, as they have been in the past, because they stepped forward on behalf of their country, I want them to have the full measure of protection such as I have as a Federal employee. Reluctantly, I look at the package before us: parsimonious, in my regard. I will withdraw my reservation, but I will do so reluctantly, because I want this process to be better. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my reservation of objection with the hope that our administration, our leaders, will continue to work to give the assurance that screening, that education be available for every first responder to avoid the risks, as many of them as we can. We can work to make this package even better.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The bill has many problems. For example, it rejects the sensible, bipartisan compromise on hydro dam relicensing offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Instead, the provisions in H.R. 6 would lead to a stunted review process that will weaken protection for wildlife and the environment. The electricity deregulation provisions do nothing to address most of the problems we saw in California, such as returning California's money that was stolen by pricing-gouging energy companies. The electricity provisions weaken important consumer and investor protections, possibly bringing on more Enron-type shenanigans in the future. The bill would also weaken States' abilities to protect their coasts and weigh in on proposals for liquid natural gas facilities. I am very disappointed that I was not allowed to offer my amendment to strike this harmful provision which weakens the important Coastal Zone Management Act. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight problems in the motor fuels section. This part of H.R. 6 originally arose for two purposes: one, to get rid of gas additive and groundwater contaminant MTBE; and, second, to end an outdated clean air regulation on reformulated gas. The clean air issue was solved by the bill, and that is good. But we still do not ban MTBE, and it is still contaminating our groundwater. Incredibly, the bill gives the industry immunity from the damage it knowingly caused to our water and $750 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies. The bill also has a huge and unnecessary ethanol mandate and liability protection for ethanol producers as well. Achieving our original goal could have been done without all these industry goodies that will cost consumers millions. I am deeply disappointed that the amendment banning MTBE, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and me, was not made in order, despite a very close vote on this issue in committee and an obvious need for action. Mr. Chairman, we should ban MTBE to protect our Nation's drinking water and not let the industry off the hook. For these reasons and for so many others, this is a bad bill; and we should vote it down.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns with the Republican budget. It is critically important that we raise these issues and we raise them now, because the conference on the budget is meeting right now to determine the shape of the budget for the Federal Government for the coming year. Despite the adoption of our Democratic motion to instruct last week, which called on ignoring the cuts in the Republican bill, I am not particularly heartened by the progress we have seen so far. For example, much is being made of the Senate's action to cut back the President's tax cut to a mere $350 billion. That is certainly a better result than what we got in the House, but it is far from fiscally responsible or appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the Federal budget is on record deficits. Every nonpartisan look at the budget numbers comes up with the same result, budget deficits of $300-400 billion for as far as the eye can see. We must not forget that in this budget process, we are a country at war. As I speak today, men and women in uniform are risking their very lives on the front lines in Iraq. This war has already cost us young lives, and we can only hope and pray it will not cost us more. We know that our commitment in Iraq will not end soon, and we know that without a doubt the war in Iraq and its aftermath will continue to cost our Treasury. Just last week we passed legislation to provide nearly $70 billion in emergency funding, which was not part of the budget, and that will grow this year and the next. My point is that we have enormous commitments facing our country and we cannot ignore them. These tax cuts are crowding our ability to deal with issues on the table. The Republican budget resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible tax cut package at the expense of our Nation's health care needs. Our health care security is part of our national security. Despite the protests of many Members of this Chamber, the majority's resolution still requires Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans programs to be cut. Medicaid is to be cut by $93 billion, the appropriate committees are charged to either cut Medicare by $200 billion or to shortchange an already weak prescription drug coverage benefit. The Committee on Veterans Affairs is supposed to cut $15 billion from their programs, the vast majority of these are health- and benefit- related. These types of cuts would endanger health care for the most vulnerable millions of Americans, those who have worn the uniform, those who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It is unconscionable, and it does not reflect American values. And I think of the sidewalk office hours I held in Santa Maria, California this past Saturday. Veterans came to me and implored me not to cut their benefits. Senior citizens came showing me their prescription medication costs, and telling me they are on fixed incomes and they cannot pay for these. But this is inevitable if we follow the Republican plan for huge tax cuts. Cuts to these vital programs are inevitable even if the tax cut is set at the Senate number. I hope as the conference moves forward this week, some sanity will reign. The choice seems very obvious: tax cuts or prescription drug coverage; tax cuts or health care for the low income; tax cuts or veterans benefits. It does not seem to be much of a choice. We cannot afford these cuts, $700 billion or $350 billion; they will endanger our ability to meet our commitments to seniors and veterans. We should honor these commitments and keep our promises.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time, and Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic motion to instruct conferees so that we can fix the budget so narrowly passed by the House of Representatives, a Federal budget that is supposed to reflect our values and our priorities, but this House budget resolution does not do that and so we need to change it. The Republican budget resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible tax cut package at the expense of our Nation's health care needs. This is part of our national security, our health care security, and despite the protests of many Members of this Chamber, the majority resolution still requires Medicare and Medicaid to be cut, Medicaid to be cut by $93 billion, and the appropriating committees are charged to either cut Medicare by almost $200 billion or to shortchange an already weak prescription drug coverage benefit. Terrible choices. These cuts endanger health care for almost 90 million Americans, among them the most vulnerable members of our society. This is unconscionable. This does not reflect American values. As we move toward conference, we need to eliminate these terrible cuts, and among them, these health care cuts include cuts to our veterans, even as we are sending our young men and women off to war, and they will one day come back to be our Nation's veterans. We are cutting health care benefits to today's veterans, wheelchair bound, frail, elderly. Promises made should be promises kept. We need to reflect America's values in our budget, in our budget resolution, and we need to support the Democratic motion to instruct conferees so that we can do that.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record letters from the following groups which I have before me. These letters are written by the American Public Health Association; the International Union of Police Associations; the American Nurses Association; the International Association of Firefighters; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Service Employers National Union; and the Infectious Disease Society of America. American Nurses Association, March 28, 2003. Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Nurses Association (ANA), I urge you to oppose the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463). This bill does not provide adequate education, prescreening, surveillance, and compensation--therefore it will not result in an increase in the number of nurses volunteering for vaccinations. As this bill will be considered under the suspension of the rules, you will be denied the opportunity to vote in favor of the Capps/Waxman substitute that ANA supports. The ANA is the only full-service association representing the nation's RNs through our 54 state and territorial constituent member organizations. Our members are well represented in the Administration's plan to vaccinate 10.5 million health care workers and first responders. ANA supports efforts to ensure that our nation is prepared for a possible terrorist attack. ANA has, since November 2002, been trying to work with the Administration to formulate a strong smallpox vaccination program that will encourage nurses to volunteer to be immunized. Since the Administration's plan was first announced, ANA has repeatedly raised questions about the health and safety of nurses who are vaccinated, as well as their patients and families. ANA's concerns have been echoed by many in the public health community and reinforced by an expert panel from the Institute of Medicine. Unfortunately, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463), fails to address these questions. The smallpox vaccine is a live virus. It has the worst record of negative side effects of any vaccine in the world. It is imperative, as a matter of public health, that those being vaccinated understand the risks of the vaccine to themselves and their loved ones, and be prescreened for conditions that require them to refuse the vaccine. The smallpox inoculation site can shed the live virus for up to three weeks. In the 1960s, more than 20% of the adverse vaccination events occurred in secondary contacts. Therefore, the vaccination program poses a risk not only to nurses, but also to their patients and families. Members of the armed services have received personalized education, and free and confidential prescreening prior to the administration of the vaccine. This process properly screened out one-third of the potential recipients. The Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act fails to require a similar program. In addition, H.R. 1463 fails to require sufficient funding needed to ensure that state and local public health officials can actually implement the crucial education, prescreening, and surveillance programs. The recent death of a Maryland nurse, a Florida nurse aide, and a National Guardsman only underscore the need for this robust education, prescreening, and surveillance effort. Nurses and other first responders will continue to feel uncomfortable about the vaccine until they receive the reliable information needed to make an informed decision. Furthermore, H.R. 1463 contains an insufficient, unfunded compensation program. The Administration is basically asking healthy nurses to place themselves (as well as their patients and families) at risk for the common good. The vaccination has no tangible benefits for nurses; it is sought in the name of homeland security. ANA does not believe that nurses should be made to bear this public risk without the guarantee of a real compensation program. H.R. 1463 contains an unacceptable lifetime cap on wage replacement and fails to ensure that funds will be available for the compensation fund. ANA urges you to vote against H.R. 1463. Your no vote does not mean that you oppose a smallpox compensation program. In fact, the solid disapproval of this bill will demonstrate needed support for a real smallpox vaccination program, such as the Capps/Waxman substitute. Please feel free to call Erin McKeon (202) 651-7095 or Christopher Donnellan (202) 651-7088 on my staff with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Rose Gonzalez, MPS, RN, Director, Government Affairs.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I stand here with my colleagues in opposition to this bill, drafted by the leadership with a kind of arrogance that presumes to know what is best for our first responders than they themselves know. With their testimony, with their letters, with their anguish, they implore us to give them the confidence that they need if they are going to be asked to take a risk to become a part of the shield to protect this Nation against terrorist attack. We need to defeat this legislation for them so that they can have confidence in this House that we can do what is right, not just for them but for our Nation in this time of peril. And so I will close by using some of the language of my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who says in his written statement, ``Right after we defeat this bill, I hope that we can set about the task of creating bipartisan legislation that all Members of the House can support. The very people this bill purports to help, nurses, EMTs, police officers, firefighters, find this hastily crafted legislation lacking. Why? Because it fails to address their very significant concerns.''

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, could I now inquire how much time is remaining?

Mrs. CAPPS. Could I beg of the Chair to consider then, because I was generous in yielding to my colleague, that we be given more time, because we have several people who still wish to speak?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say, with all due respect to my chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that I commend him for his sense of urgency about the timing of this. The first responders, my colleagues who are nurses, have told us that they want confidence before they are going to roll up their sleeves and take this vaccine, and that this bill does not give them the confidence and that is why we stand in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for a response.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire what time remains?