Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Wall Street Bonus Tax Act. The legislation introduced by Congressman Peter Welch would right a terrible wrong. Right now, dozens of the financial institutions responsible for the economic meltdown are reverting right back to their old bad habits. They are getting ready to clap themselves on the back for the great job they think they've been doing by giving themselves billions of dollars in bonuses. But the thanks and the bonuses should go not to the bankers at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and the others; it should go back to the American people. It was the American people who stepped in and saved the banks from themselves. It was the American people who pumped billions of taxpayer dollars into Wall Street to keep it from melting down and taking the rest of the economy with it. And it should be the American people who reap the benefits of that action, not Wall Street banks. Congress should pass the Wall Street Bonus Tax Act and give the American people their money back.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place into the Record a compelling op-ed written by Representative George Miller, which appeared recently in the Vallejo Times Herald. I have long admired Representative Miller's thoughtful approach to one of the toughest foreign policy challenges we face--resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. In this piece, Representative Miller cogently outlines a path forward in the Middle East and discusses the importance of supporting a political process that will bring about two States living side by side in peace and security. [From the Vallejo Times Herald, Jan. 14, 2010] Fresh Thinking on Supporting Israel (By Representative George Miller) I read with interest Larry Grossman's piece in the Times- Herald (``Miller isn't fair to Israel,'' Jan. 10) criticizing my record on issues related to Israel. I believe he and I share the same interest in defending Israel's right to exist and flourish in peace and security. We appear to differ on what it means to support Israel. I am glad to be able to offer my view. The United States can and must play a constructive role in helping to end the deadly and destabilizing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors. But adhering to an outdated ideology that punishes diverse perspectives on the Middle East is a disservice to Israel and the cause of peace and security. Here are my views on some of the key issues facing Israel and the United States today. I support a strong and lasting friendship between the United States and Israel. The deep ties between our nations are rooted in a shared culture and common set of beliefs. America's support for Israel and the Israeli people has never been, nor is it now, in question. I fully support Israel's right to defend itself and I reject hateful speech, rocket attacks, suicide bombs and other violent attacks directed against the Israeli people. No nation should ever be expected to withstand such attacks without response. When I have been critical of Israeli military action, such as in Gaza in 2008, it has been based on the view that Israel's response was disproportionate and undermined its long-term interests. In addition, democratic nations like Israel and the United States must respect International Law and human rights and I will always demand adherence to those critical instruments of democracy and freedom. I support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the immediate resumption of peace talks as necessary steps to ensure Israel's security and status as a democratic nation. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton support a two-state solution, as did President George W. Bush. Moreover, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports a two-state solution. Israel must cease the aggressive, and sometimes illegal, settlement activity in order for the peace talks and the two-state solution to succeed. When it comes to votes in Congress affecting the Middle East, I do not follow orthodoxy but judge issues based on whether they advance the cause of peace and security. Consider two recent examples. Along with 57 other members of Congress, I opposed a House resolution in November criticizing a report by Justice Richard Goldstone on the Gaza war because the bill was rushed through the House without a single congressional hearing or any delineation of the relevant issues for members' consideration. On the other hand, I supported the recently passed Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which furthered the cause of peace and security by sending a strong signal to Iran that Congress is willing, if necessary, to enact tough sanctions to diminish Iran's capability to threaten Israel. Debate in the United States on Middle East issues has been dominated for decades by the position pushed by some supporters of Israel that the only friend of Israel is the one who never criticizes. That is not the definition of friendship. Not all actions by the government of Israel are in the best of interest of the Jewish people, but to say so publicly is not an attack on the state. The same is true for our own country. Criticizing the Bush administration for invading Iraq or the Obama administration for wanting to close Guantanamo, just for example, are not attacks on America nor should they ever be labeled as such. There are many different voices within Israel on the issue of peace and security, just as there are wide ranging views among American Jews and others in our country that support the state of Israel. Americans For Peace Now, for example, an affiliate of the non-governmental Israeli movement Peace Now, is critical of some Israeli military and government actions but is clearly pro-Israel. And J Street, a different organization mentioned by Mr. Grossman, does an excellent job of educating policymakers about Middle East issues. J Street is pro-Israel and pro-peace but does not support every Israeli government position. These two groups are rattling the nerves of the traditional pro-Israel lobby--and they are being attacked as a result. But the strength of democracy is its tolerance for dissent. Expanding the debate is a positive development for Jews, Palestinians and all Americans interested in securing a lasting peace in the Middle East. My approach as a Member of Congress when it comes to the Middle East and other vital concerns is to examine issues and raise questions and determine whether the actions planned by Congress are helpful to the cause of peace and security. I can think of no greater way in which to show my support for Israel and the Israeli people.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, the two most pressing issues that our constituents want us to tackle are health care and the economy. Last week, I convened a number of roundtables in my district with a variety of business leaders in order to discuss the economy and jobs. Health care costs were, as I expected, a top concern for all of them, and that's why I was proud to report that our health reform legislation will benefit them. Our health reform bill will allow small business to add an estimated 80,000 new jobs because we are going to be lowering the cost of health insurance premiums. It is pretty simple: less money spent on health insurance premiums means the ability to hire new workers and to have salary increases for existing employees. Contrast that with the other side, which is to preserve the status quo: letting insurance premiums continue to rise and to cause further job loss. We must enact meaningful health reform now in order to reduce health insurance costs, to protect jobs, and to enable small business growth.

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, may I require of the remaining time on this side?

Mrs. CAPPS. At this time, it's my pleasure to acknowledge and I yield to the Congressman from New York (Mr. Engel) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, in yielding back our time, I remind our colleagues that the truth is, when enacted into law, H.R. 3962 will result in millions of uninsured Americans receiving their first mammogram and will no longer face being dropped by their insurance company if they are diagnosed with cancer. I wish to acknowledge and thank the leader of this resolution for her hard work, our colleague, Representative Wasserman Schultz. Ms. DeLAURA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, H.R. 971, which helps to clarify much of the unnecessary furor over mammograms we have experienced of late. The recent breast cancer recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force effectively said that women ages 40 to 49 should have a conversation with their doctors before deciding to have a screening mammograms. In other words, they were to attempt to put as much information as possible in the hands of women and their doctors, so they can assess their own risk and benefit. Now, whatever decision women come to on this important matter, they need two things to ensure they have access to mammography should they decide to get screened: One is a quality health coverage so they have a doctor they can go speak to. And the second is coverage for mammograms and other important preventative services. And, of course, some women will need coverage for treatment if a cancer is found. This is why I support this resolution, which argues that insurers should not deny coverage for mammograms for women ages 40 to 49 who decide to get screened. This is also why I support comprehensive health insurance reform, so that women can afford health care in the first place, and get coverage for that mammograms and any follow-up treatment they might need. We must redouble our efforts across the board to ensure that Americans are getting the appropriate preventive screenings. Right now, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 25.9 percent of women ages 50 to 64 have received all the recommended preventive care for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, as well as influenza. Under health reform, women would finally get the preventive care they need. In the meantime, there is a great need for more information, more research, and more scientific innovation to help women prevent, detect, and fight breast cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women. This resolution also urges the National Cancer Institute to continue to invest in research toward more effective screening tools and strategies for improving detection of breast cancer. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleague to support this resolution. Mammography is not perfect, but right now it is the best method we have to detect this killer in our midst. We need to make sure that as many women as possible have access to this important, life-saving procedure, and that better, safer screening procedures will soon be forthcoming.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 971) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding guidelines for breast cancer screening for women ages 40 to 49.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mrs. CAPPS. I am pleased now to introduce and to acknowledge my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Connolly, for 1 minute.

Mrs. CAPPS. I have two additional speakers.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again as to the time that remains on our side.

Mrs. CAPPS. I am now pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield to our colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Halvorson, 1 minute.

Mrs. CAPPS. I am pleased to yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to our colleague from Florida (Ms. Kosmas).

Mrs. CAPPS. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to our colleague from Colorado, Congresswoman Markey.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 971. This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines would not prohibit an insurer from providing coverage for mammography services beyond those recommended by the task force. It further states that these guidelines should not be used by insurers to deny coverage for these services. It also expresses the sense of the House that the National Cancer Institute should continue to invest and provide leadership regarding research to develop more effective screening tools and strategies for improving the detection of breast cancer. On November 16, 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a series of six recommendations regarding breast cancer screening, three of which pertain to mammography screening among women of various age groups. At a recent hearing in our Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee, the task force representatives acknowledged that they should have done a better job communicating their findings to the public. Unfortunately, this failure in communication has led to much concern and confusion about what their findings and recommendations are and what the implications would be. Mr. Speaker, this task force is not suggesting that women in their forties forego mammography. The task force is recommending that women in their forties determine when to begin screening and base this decision on a conversation with their doctors or health providers. And we can all agree that women in their forties should have access to mammography if these women and their physicians decide it's right for them. I think we can also agree that while mammography is still the best tool that we have to detect breast cancer in its earliest stages, it is, by every means, an imperfect tool. We need continued research into more effective screening tools and strategies to improve the detection of breast cancer. Breast cancer is the second most common cancer among United States women, and it is the leading cause of cancer death for women between the ages of 29 and 59. This year, new cases of breast cancer among American women will reach an estimated 192,370, and over 40,000 women will die from breast cancer this year. The American Cancer Society estimates that one in 8 women will have invasive breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. These statistics illustrate that breast cancer continues to be a major health issue, despite recent declines in breast cancer mortality rates. But beyond these statistics, cancer is a very personal situation for many of us in this Chamber, whether it has affected a mother, a daughter, a wife, a friend, a colleague or, as it has for me, my own sister. I want to commend my colleague, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for introducing this resolution and for being so forthcoming about her very personal experience being diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this point to yield 1 minute to our colleague from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind my colleagues that in the health reform bill, as it was considered in the House of Representatives, once the essential benefits package is established, it acts as a floor, not as a ceiling. And with regard to preventive services, the bill says that recommended items and services with a grade of A or B from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shall be covered as part of the essential benefits package, with no cost- sharing, and that the Secretary may approve such coverage, regardless of what the task force or the benefits advisory committee says. And at this point I'm very pleased to yield to Representative Wasserman Schultz, the sponsor of this legislation, 5 minutes.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that at the hearing 2 weeks ago at the Energy and Commerce Committee, the breast cancer stakeholders were asked a simple question: Would H.R. 3962, the health reform bill, help women with breast cancer? Every witness on that panel, including the American Cancer Society, Komen, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the American College of Physicians, every witness on the panel agreed that this bill, the health reform bill, will help women to prevent and women who already have breast cancer. And at this point, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and a big supporter of the Breast Cancer Caucus, Jerry Nadler.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, the scientific consensus about whether humans are causing global warming is clear. Reports from the United Nations IPCC underscore the need for all countries to take action to reduce global warming pollution. As I speak, world leaders are meeting in Copenhagen to negotiate a new global climate treaty. This is a tremendous opportunity for the United States to lead the world in coalescing around a fair, ambitious, and binding climate agreement. We must confront the causes of global warming and manage the impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, and help developing countries benefit from clean energy technologies. Mr. Speaker, the United States has a lot to gain in Copenhagen. Currently, European countries generate more of their electricity than we do from clean alternative sources, while China is on track to become the world's leading maker of wind turbines by the end of this year. The United States can lead the world in growing a clean energy economy. We can create new American jobs and strengthen our national security while we protect our planet. We can, and we must, be the global clean energy leader again. Let's all support a fair, ambitious, and binding climate agreement in Copenhagen.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Doug Carroll of San Luis Obispo, CA. He is a valued member of the Central Coast Community and a valiant champion for all those living with Multiple Sclerosis. Since being diagnosed, ``Pastor Doug'' has maintained an active schedule, traveling to Sacramento and Washington, DC to lobby on behalf of all those affected by this horrible disease. Back on the Central Coast, Pastor Doug managed to fit in MS fundraising and awareness events between a busy social calendar, multiple doctor and physical therapy appointments and his famous cooking classes at Spencer Market. He is a friend and inspiration to all who know him. Though his health has deteriorated, his desire to educate others about MS has not. Countless people in my community have learned of the horrible effects this degenerative disease can have on an individual. Pastor Doug has handled these challenges with grace, good humor and humility. He is an example to us all and I am proud to represent him in Congress.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, one of the more divisive issues in our health reform debate has unfortunately been how to treat insurance coverage of abortion. Everyone agrees our goal is to preserve the status quo. Yesterday our colleagues in the Senate did exactly that by tabling the Nelson amendment, modeled after the Stupak amendment, which would have severely restricted a woman's access to reproductive health care services. The status quo means no Federal funding for abortion other than in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment of the woman. The status quo means entities that receive Federal funds may use their own private funds for activities that are being prohibited from being paid for with Federal money. An example of this are the churches which receive millions of dollars in taxpayer funds every year to provide social services, but must segregate those funds from other funds used to engage in religious activity. Similarly, the amendment I passed in the Energy and Commerce Committee, along with the current Senate language, maintains the same principle without eroding a woman's legitimate access to a legal medical procedure. I urge my colleagues to reject inclusion of the harmful Stupak language in any final version of the health reform legislation. Maintain the Senate's language and the status quo.