Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The form of this motion is as follows: Mrs. Capps of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two House on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1, be instructed as follows: Number one, to reject the provisions of subtitle C of title II of the House bill. Number two, to reject the provisions of section 231 of the Senate amendment. Number three, within the scope of the conference, to increase payments for physician services by an amount equal to the amount of savings attributable to the rejection of the aforementioned provisions. Number four, to insist upon section 601 of the House bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 94, the Direct Support Professional Recognition Resolution. I was pleased to join Representative Sessions and Representative Langevin in introducing this resolution. They have been tireless in their efforts to pass it and deserve credit for their leadership on this issue. Right now more than 8 million Americans have mental retardation or other developmental disabilities. Though they need some degree of assistance, they deserve to live the fullest, most complete lives possible. And they can, with the help of America's direct support professionals. But it is harder and harder for community-based homes and other institutions to find and keep men and women who want to do this kind of work. There are not enough new people taking up this calling and too many are leaving the field. Though this line of work can be very rewarding, it is also very challenging. Those in the field now are overworked and often underappreciated by our society. Those who commit themselves to it should be recognized and honored for their dedication. But we need to do more to ensure that our support network for the developmentally disabled does not collapse in the face of this problem. That is what this resolution is about. Demand for these services, and for direct support professionals will also continue to grow in the coming years. But right now our Nation's long-term care system relies on a variety of public and private funding sources that may not be reliable in the long run. Medicaid supports many of these programs, but the amount of their support varies from State to State. And now some critics of Medicaid are trying to make sweeping reforms that may jeopardize the support this system has now. Congress needs to take a serious look at this problem and begin developing solutions. We cannot afford to have a shortage of direct support personnel. I urge my colleagues to give these men and women the support they deserve. I urge my colleagues to dedicate themselves to helping avoid a shortage. And I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 2003, I submitted a personal explanation for rollcall votes No. 553-No. 561. In that personal explanation, I inadvertently listed incorrectly how I would have voted on rollcall No. 558, rollcall No. 560 and rollcall No. 561. I respectfully request that the Record now reflect how I would have voted on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall No. 558--``yes''; rollcall No. 560--``no''; and rollcall No. 561--``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The form of the motion is as follows: Mrs. Capps of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed as follows: One, to reject the provision of subtitle C of title II of the House bill. Two, to reject the provisions of section 231 of the Senate amendment. Three, within the scope of the conference, to increase payments for physician services by an amount equal to the amount of savings attributable to the rejection of aforementioned provisions. Four, to insist upon section 601 of the House bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow nurse for yielding and also for her motion to instruct conferees on the Energy Policy Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion. It is a real shame that at the 11th hour the Republican conferees have added a new provision to this energy bill which weakens the Clean Air Act and harms public health. This new provision will allow polluted cities to avoid having to clean up their dirty air. Right now cities can get extended deadlines to meet their requirements under the Clean Air Act, but in exchange for the time extension, within the Clean Air Act, cities with dirty air have to meet specific goals and specific timetables. This is EPA's bump-up policy that is supposed to ensure that dirty air is cleaned up. And the policy is designed to work with cities, to make sure that this can happen in a timely fashion. But under the new energy provisions being proposed, cities that have not met their clean air requirements will just be given a pass. That means that cities with dirty air will not have to institute stronger pollution controls to clean up their act for a much longer time. People living in these cities and people living downwind will suffer longer from dirty air and its damaging health effects. We cannot afford this, not in our health care and not in our economy. As a public health nurse, I am so concerned with this very provision and its impact on the state of our air quality. The argument is that it is hard for these polluted areas to clean up due to dirty air blown in from elsewhere. That case has been made. But in many of these areas it is been demonstrated that these areas that would be exempted, transported pollution is only a small part of the problem. Now, what about continued local clean-up efforts which are demonstrated to be necessary? And, in addition, this new provision provides a special break for certain areas of Texas and Louisiana. That is blatantly unfair to all the cities and their businesses that have worked so hard to meet pollution control deadlines, to provide healthy air for their citizens. This added change also harms all the areas downwind of those that get the extension as more air pollution will continue to blow downwind for so many years longer. The truth is this last minute change was never approved by either the House or the Senate. In fact, this provision, and I was at the hearing that we held in July, but it has never been debated upon. Alternatives have never been able to be proposed in a committee setting. This change weakens the Clean Air Act and overturns three appellate court rulings upholding current law. This is an end run around the courts which have repeatedly held that the EPA does not have the authority to extend air quality deadlines without following the Clean Air Act requirements. Mr. Speaker, EPA reports that 133 million Americans in our country live where air is unhealthy to breathe because of ozone pollution. The provisions in this bill are denying these Americans their right to breathe clean air. The provision in this bill is going to be denying these Americans their right to breathe clean air. The provision in the energy bill is a bad idea. The end result will be a delay in cleanup, continued unhealthy air, and more asthma attacks, respiratory illnesses and other health problems. It is going to affect health and productivity of American companies and American workers. Our children and our families have waited too long for clean air. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion and oppose any energy bill that contains this shameful provision.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 562--``no''; rollcall No. 563--``yes''; rollcall No. 564--``yes''; rollcall No. 565--``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall Nos. 553--``yes''; 554--``yes''; 555--``yes''; 556--``yes''; 557--``yes''; 558--``no''; 559--``no''; 560--``yes''; 561--``no.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Last year I voted against the war in Iraq because I believed this administration had overstated its case for this preemptive war, rushed us unilaterally into this conflict, and ultimately had no real plan for the postwar reconstruction. Despite the President's protests, these concerns have proved legitimate. Iraq is still in chaos. American soldiers, international diplomats, and Iraqi civilians are being killed every day. And the administration is still a long way from pacifying Iraq or setting up a stable government. Mr. Chairman, when U.S. soldiers are in harm's way, the first concern of Americans is how to best support our troops. We want to be sure they have the material and equipment they need to protect themselves and complete their mission. And we want to know that our troops are being used appropriately and that the administration is doing everything feasible to keep them as safe as possible. Mr. Chairman, the American people have their doubts about the progress in Iraq and the administration's wisdom in handling this situation. So do I. The administration clearly did little or no planning for postwar Iraq. It has proven to be unprepared for the complexities and dangers of restoring Iraqi stability. And we have not yet realized the success in Iraq that the administration claimed it delivered when it declared the mission accomplished five months ago. In their rush to get public support for the war administration officials scoffed at experts who predicted that more troops and more money would be needed. Now the President has requested a staggering $87 billion in taxpayer money to fund his efforts in Iraq. I am amazed at the audacity of the President's request. While I do believe we will have to make a substantial financial commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq, I am concerned that this administration is starving efforts to solve problems here at home. The size of this package, on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest Americans, will significantly add to the budget deficit, already the largest in history. And yet the Administration has said over and over again that there is not enough money for Medicare, for education, for housing, or for any of our domestic priorities. And Americans seem to be bearing this burden in Iraq alone. The President has failed to get international support or give the UN a prominent role in this mission. And the Administration has not shown the Congress or the American people a plan for completing the reconstruction. Nor does it show any signs of having a plan that will reduce the threat to our soldiers in the near future. In fact, the Administration seems to be in denial that anything is wrong in Iraq. I support giving our troops the funding they need. And I understand and agree with our responsibility to rebuild Iraq. I firmly believe that after dismantling the Iraqi government we cannot pull out until we have restored stability. But sometimes the best way to achieve our goals and support our troops is to send a strong message that the current policy is not working. This Administration needs a wake-up call on its Iraq policy. Defeating this supplemental would be that wake-up call. The proposal I support would be much better for the troops than the President's request. It allocates more resources to improve the quality of life for the men and women serving in Iraq. It would have provided for much more accountability for the Administration's efforts in Iraq. And it would have paid for this huge amount of spending so it would not increase the budget deficit. It is time for the Administration to reexamine its policy in Iraq. It is time for the US to make changes to assure success. And it is time for the President to swallow his pride, admit that things are not going well in Iraq and ask for international support. Let's send him this message by defeating this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, moving up the Pacific Coast, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. In closing, I want to take a few seconds to underscore what this word ``inventory'' really means. It sounds innocuous; it sounds harmless. But surveying of the outer continental shelf would result in millions of seismic cannon blasts in our coastal waters from testing vessels. Research has found that an average modern 3D seismic survey requires a blast every 25 meters or every few seconds as a ship, a vessel that is surveying, cruises along. Calculations based on this rate of seismic blast find that it would take at least 285 million seismic blasts to inventory the outer continental shelf. The total cost of such a survey could approach $50 billion for the entire OCS, not including costly analyses to actually find potential oil and gas deposits. These estimates come from discussions with MMS officials and survey companies. So my question, again, why does the Congress want to waste taxpayers' money on a duplicative process, inventory of areas off limits to oil and gas exploration? Mr. Speaker, as the list of our speakers and co-sponsors of this motion indicates, these issues are by no means regional or partisan. By allowing this harmful language in the energy bill, our coasts will be threatened, commercial fishing jobs will be at risk, tourism will be at risk, States' economies will be threatened, and the beauty of our coastline will be seriously undermined. That goes for every single coastal State. The House has shown wisdom in removing the inventory requirement. I ask the conference committee to do the same. We should be seeking long- term solutions that make sense for energy development and that balance environmental protection and economic growth. The provisions to roll back the moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and to weaken the States' rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act fall far short of a balanced approach. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion, to stop an attack on the laws that protect our sensitive coastal and marine areas.

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to enter into the Record in support of this motion a letter signed by 100 Members of Congress, bipartisan, in support of removing this kind of provision from the energy bill. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 12, 2003. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Chairman Domenici and Chairman Tauzin: As the Senate and House conference the omnibus Energy bill, we request that you maintain the longstanding bipartisan moratorium on new mineral leasing activity on submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). In addition, we ask that a provision requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory the potential oil and gas resources of the entire OCS, including those areas now off-limits to new drilling, not be included in the final bill. Such a provision would seriously undermine current protections for these environmentally sensitive and economically important coastal and marine areas. As you know, the House of Representatives spoke forcefully on this issue when it unanimously passed the Capps- Miller(FL)-Davis(FL) amendment to the Energy bill. This amendment removed language that would require an unnecessary ``inventory'' of resources on the OCS, including exploratory drilling in areas now under the OCS moratorium. This was the fourth time strong, bipartisan majorities in the House have come together in recent years to protect sensitive coastal areas from new drilling. In addition, the Senate passed version of the Energy bill did not contain this provision. A comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and gas resources is inconsistent with the moratorium which currently exists in California, Florida and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Bristol Bay, New England, and the entire Atlantic Coast. For more than twenty years, bipartisan legislative and administrative actions that have enhanced protection of moratoria areas from offshore oil and gas development. Beginning in 1982, the OCS moratorium on new offshore oil and gas activity of the OCS has been included in every annual Interior Appropriations bill. In addition, in 1990 President George H. W. Bush signed an executive memorandum placing a ten-year moratorium on new leasing on the OCS. In 1998, this moratorium was renewed by President Bill Clinton and extended until 2012. The proposed inventory would also contradict the moratorium contained in the President's budget to enable continued protection of the OCS. These actions have all been met with public acclaim and as necessary steps to preserve the economic and environmental value of our nation's coasts. Additionally, an inventory is not needed. The Minerals Management Service already compiles estimates of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources every 5 years. In fact, the last one was completed in the year 2000, and includes estimates of undiscovered conventionally and economically recoverable oil and natural gas. We already know, for instance, that 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered, economically recoverable OCS gas is located in the Central and Western part of the Gulf of Mexico, which is currently not subject to the moratorium. Therefore, it appears such a provision of this energy bill is duplicative and unnecessary. Tourism is a major industry for coastal states and a staple of their coastal economies. The money spent by tourists pay the bills and put food on the table for the people living in these communities. Offshore oil and gas drilling directly threatens this economic engine and the people of these communities know it. We urge you to protect our vital coastal communities by ensuring that provisions that would weaken the OCS moratorium on new drilling off our coasts are not included in the final Energy bill. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lois Capps, Jim Davis, Jim Saxton, Rosa DeLauro, Earl Blumenauer, Bob Etheridge, Chris Van Hollen, Anna Eshoo, Jeff Miller, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Frank LoBiondo, Jim Oberstar, Peter Deutsch, Rahm Emanuel, William Delahunt, Katherine Harris. Frank Pallone, Joe Hoeffel, Stephen Lynch, Adam Schiff, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Elton Gallegly, Steven Rothman, Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, Jim McDermott, Rush Holt, Gary Ackerman, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Pete Stark, E. Clay Shaw, Chris Smith, Lynn Woolsey, Peter DeFazio, Michael Honda, Grace Napolitano, Kendrick Meek, David Wu, John Olver, Ginny Brown-Waite, Brad Miller. Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee, Diane Watson, Sam Farr, Susan Davis, Bob Filner, Xavier Becerra, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Allen Boyd, Mark Foley, Michael Michaud, Tom Lantos, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Thompson, George Miller, Ellen Tauscher, Loretta Sanchez, Zoe Lofgren, Jim Langevin, Porter Goss, Dennis Cardoza, Robert Matsui, Jane Harman. Tom Allen, Bill Pascrell, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn McCarthy, Alcee Hastings, Jim McGovern, Louise Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Ed Case, Jan Schakowsky, Richard Neal, Ben Cardin, Nita Lowey, Dale Kildee, Jay Inslee, Bart Stupak, Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney, Robert Wexler, Corrine Brown, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Towns, Robert Menendez, Eliot Engel. John Larson, Betty McCollum, Hilda Solis, Walter Jones, Patrick Kennedy, Howard Berman, Raul Grijalva, Barney Frank, Ric Keller, Linda Sanchez, Madeline Bordallo, Lane Evans.

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds to respond to some comments that have been made on the other side. You have been saying that you just want to allow an inventory of oil and gas off our coasts; it will not hurt. But taking an inventory of what lies beneath the sea floor is not like taking an inventory of office supplies. Looking for oil and gas off our coasts is an invasive process. The process itself carries risk. It harms marine life and can create serious environmental economic damage. The language we struck from the House bill allowed exploration or drilling in part of the OCS. We already know, for instance, that 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered economically-recoverable OCS gas is located in the central and western part of the Gulf of Mexico. This is MMS's most recent study to indicate this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who represents the beautiful coastline of Oregon.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who himself worked out the bipartisan agreement with the chairman of the Committee on Resources on the CZMA.

Mrs. CAPPS. Again, I thank my colleague from Texas for being so generous with his time. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my neighbor on the California coast and a strong advocate in this arena.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who cares a great deal about the North Carolina coastline. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. This motion does two things: First, it instructs conferees to include in the conference report House provisions concerning consistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the CZMA, States can review projects, like offshore oil and gas development, which impact their coastal zones. While a State can reject a project not found to be in its best overall interest, that rejection can still be appealed to the Secretary of Commerce. Currently, there is no limit on the time the Secretary can use to develop the record to make a decision in an appeals case. During consideration of the energy bill, a bipartisan compromise to impose a reasonable time frame on this appeals process was developed and included in the legislation that passed in the House. The House should respect this bipartisan, commonsense compromise, and so should the conference committee. Second, the motion instructs conferees to confine themselves to matters in the House bill regarding any offshore preleasing, leasing, or development moratorium. Mr. Speaker, you may remember during consideration of the energy bill, that the House agreed to a bipartisan amendment I offered with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). That amendment struck from H.R. 6 a provision to require a so-called ``inventory'' of oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. This inventory would be taken in areas of the OCS currently off limits to any new drilling, which includes, and this is very important, any predrilling activities. These areas include the coastal areas of California, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Alaska's Bristol Bay, and the entire East Coast. The inventory language that was struck out of the House bill, unanimously, would have required seismic surveys and other invasive technologies in the OCS areas now off limits to new drilling. Mr. Speaker, these are predrilling activities not permissible under current law. The House unanimously struck this inventory because it is a bad idea for the following reasons: First, it is completely unnecessary. Proponents of the inventory are going to come to the floor, and they are going to tell us how important it is to know what resources are out there in the OCS. They are going to say we just want to know what is out there. The only problem with that argument is that we already know what is out there. The Minerals Management Service already conducts a survey every 5 years, and the latest assessment was done in the year 2000. This assessment includes estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas that is conventionally and economically recoverable. So if we know what is out there, why the inventory provision? That brings us to the second reason this inventory is a bad idea. It is really just the first step in drilling in these areas now off limits. The inventory is an attempt to overturn the Presidential and congressional moratoria on new drilling in these sensitive coastal areas, and that is really what this is all about. It is a push on behalf of the oil companies to start drilling in coastal areas of the United States where there is not a whole lot of oil and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear that they do not want any more drilling. Mr. Speaker, a little history might be in order. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush announced an executive moratorium ending new drilling off California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska's Bristol Bay, Florida, and the entire east coast. President Clinton extend this action to 2012. Both actions were met with widespread acclaim by a public that knows how valuable, environmentally and economically, our coastlines are. And Congress has supported these actions for the last 20 years by restricting MMS from spending funds to support any new drilling or predrilling activities in these areas. In addition, President George W. Bush endorsed both moratoria in his fiscal year 2004 budget. State officials, including Governors Jeb Bush and Christie Whitman, have endorsed the moratoria. The House has voted twice in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida and California. So despite that, there is no need of an inventory since we know what is out there. Despite that the House unanimously rejected the call for this unnecessary inventory, despite that the inventory violates long- standing moratoria enacted by Republican and Democratic Presidents, Republican and Democratic Congresses, and endorsed by the current Republican President, what are the energy conferees doing, they are putting the so-called inventory provision back into the bill. That is why we are offering this motion to instruct, to send a message to the conferees that this inventory is an unnecessary and inappropriate addition to the energy bill, and it should be dropped. Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly in strong, bipartisan voices to protect their States' sensitive coastal resources and productive coastal economies. These areas are too economically valuable to risk with more oil drilling. It takes only one accident or spill to devastate the local marine environment and economy. Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted to end new drilling off California. In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities. A vote for this motion is the same thing, a vote to protect coastal areas from new drilling. We need to reject these attempts to weaken existing protections for our coastal waters. I urge support for this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that graciousness. As my colleagues can see, I have more speakers than the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. The form of the motion is as follows: Mrs. Capps of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 6, be instructed as follows: (1) The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the House bill (section 30215) that concerns consistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. (2) The House conferees shall be instructed to confine themselves to matters committed to conference in accordance with clause 9 of rule XXII of the House of Representatives with regard to any offshore preleasing, leasing, or development moratorium.