Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2042. The so-called Ratepayer Protection Act does nothing to protect any of us. In fact, it does just the opposite. This bill would simply continue this majority's policy of sticking their head in the sand and doing nothing to address the serious problems of climate change. The Pope has said that climate change is a reality. It is impacting our lives every day. It is impacting our economy, and it is only going to get worse. Mr. Chairman, we are confronted almost daily with new evidence that climate change is leading to increased health risks, threatening our environment, and costing our economy billions of dollars. Studies have shown that climate change can lead and does lead to higher rates of asthma, reduces crop yields, acidifies our oceans, and increases the risk for harmful algal blooms. More severe droughts are threatening drinking and agriculture water supplies in many locations, while warmer climates are increasing the severity and frequency of storms in others. A recent study also showed that climate change could undo many of the improvements that we have seen in human well-being and life expectancy over the last half century. The power sector is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for nearly one-third of the U.S. total. Mr. Chairman, while we will continue to depend on fossil fuels for some time, we can and we must do more to limit their impacts on our climate. The clean power plan does just that by setting carbon reduction goals for each State and allowing States to implement customized plans to meet those goals. The clean power plan will help maintain an affordable, reliable energy system while cutting pollution and protecting public health and the environment now and for future generations; yet H.R. 2042 would derail the clean power plan and all the health and economic benefits that will come with it. The bill is full of excuses to support inaction, but does nothing to solve the problem. Mr. Chairman, this inaction on climate change is putting our constituents and our future generations at risk. It is long past time to acknowledge the causes of climate change and to tackle the issue head on. It is time for us to work together to address this problem, not to pass legislation that continues to ignore it. For these reasons and so many others, I strongly oppose H.R. 2042, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that our chemical regulatory system is badly broken and that it has been broken for a very long time. When it comes to chemicals, weak statutory authority and limited resources have prevented the EPA from fulfilling its mission of protecting public health and the environment. Current law is so weak that the EPA famously could not even use it to ban the use of asbestos despite overwhelming evidence that asbestos poses serious risks to human health. Even when the EPA can successfully regulate a chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which we know as TSCA--which has happened only five times--they must do so using a flawed cost-benefit analysis that prioritizes profits over health and safety. These are just a few of the many serious flaws of the current system. While the TSCA Modernization Act does not address all of these problems, it does take several important steps forward that will help improve the health and safety of consumers and their families. It finally ensures that health, not cost, is the standard by which the safety of chemicals is evaluated; it maintains critical State chemical safety laws, such as California's landmark Proposition 65; and for the first time, it includes explicit protections for vulnerable populations, such as pregnant mothers, children, and seniors. I want to commend Chairmen Upton and Shimkus, Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko, and the committee staffs for all of their hard work and commitment for making this a truly bipartisan bill. It is far from perfect, but it has improved at every step of the process, and I hope that continues. Should the Senate pass its TSCA reform package, I hope this cooperation continues in conference so we can produce an even stronger bill. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, our chemical laws have prioritized profits over human health and safety. This bill would put an end to this inequity and to many other serious failings of the current system. The TSCA Modernization Act is a good compromise and is a major step forward. That is why I will be voting for it today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following Roll Call votes on June 3, 2015 and would like to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Roll Call 289: No.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that will take a modest step forward to improve pipeline safety. This issue is of particular importance to me and to my constituents. Two weeks ago, more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the ruptured Plains All American Pipeline along the treasured Gaviota Coast, in my district, just north of Santa Barbara. The oil quickly flowed under the highway, onto the beach, and into the ocean where the oil slick spread south for miles along the coastline, affecting pristine environmental habitats, recreational interests, and commercial fishing operations. While the exact causes of this spill are still being investigated, it is already clear that woefully inadequate Federal pipeline safety standards played a significant role, but it didn't have to be this way. In 2011, the House worked in a bipartisan way to pass the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act. This law, which passed the House unanimously, directed the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, to update and strengthen key pipeline safety standards. The law called on PHMSA to issue a rule requiring automatic shutoff valves on new pipelines and to strengthen requirements for the inclusion of leak detection technologies on pipelines. The law required these rules to be finalized by January of last year; yet, here today, we are still waiting. PHMSA has not even issued a proposed rule on these commonsense regulations, which passed the House unanimously. PHMSA continues to drag its feet, and communities like mine continue to pay the price. It is time for PHMSA to follow the law and the bipartisan will of Congress. My amendment is simple. It would set aside $1 million of PHMSA's own budget for the finalization and implementation of these overdue pipeline safety and spill mitigation rules. My amendment would simply help ensure that section 4 and section 8 of the bipartisan 2011 pipeline safety law are finally implemented so that our Federal regulations are in line with today's reality. My amendment does not cost a dime, and it does not authorize any new programs. Section 4 requires new pipelines to install automatic shutoff valves, and section 8 requires pipeline operators to use the latest leak detection technologies. Both of these provisions were enacted unanimously by this House in 2011. The pipeline that burst in my district did not have an automatic shutoff valve despite the fact that other comparable pipelines in the area do use this technology. An automatic shutoff valve would not have prevented the spill necessarily, but it certainly would have minimized it. It took over 2 hours for the pipeline operator to even identify where the pipeline had ruptured, let alone to actually stop the flow of crude oil. That is unacceptable. If the standards required under section 4 and section 8 had been required of the Plains pipeline in my district, the spill likely would have been much less severe. My amendment would take a small, yet important step forward to address these troubling issues by pushing PHMSA to get its act together and finalize these rules. Mr. Chairman, oil and gas development, by its nature, is a dangerous and dirty business. The mere fact that the Plains and other companies have oil spill contingency funds shows that there is no such thing as a safe pipeline. Spills do happen, and they will continue to happen as long as we depend on fossil fuels for our energy needs. We have a responsibility, therefore, to do all we can to make these pipelines as safe as possible. Congress has repeatedly directed PHMSA to strengthen its standards; yet this agency has done little. My amendment would help hold their feet to the fire and get commonsense safety standards finalized and implemented. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that Federal pipeline safety standards are in serious need of improvement. Despite repeated bipartisan efforts to strengthen these standards, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, has dragged its feet on implementing the new rules. Not only has this agency failed to keep up with new statutory requirements, they struggle to even enforce the rules they already have on the books. There are several reasons for this, including rapid growth in the miles of new pipelines to inspect and the need to compete with the private sector for the best talent while using limited resources. PHMSA's preliminary estimate of serious incidents on pipelines showed an increase in 2014; and, with the miles of pipelines only multiplying, these numbers will surely grow. That is why my amendment would increase funding for PHMSA's pipeline safety program by $27 million, to simply match the President's own fiscal year 2016 budget request. While this would not solve the multitude of problems facing the agency, it would certainly make a big difference in two key areas. First, it would help PHMSA retain and recruit the best inspectors and staff. Last year, Congress provided funding for 100 additional full- time employees to help PHMSA adjust to the increasing demand; and, as part of its fiscal year 2016 request, PHMSA requested $15 million to fully fund and annualize these employees. The current bill only provides enough funding for 1 year of salaries for these new employees. How is the agency supposed to attract the best talent when they can't count on paying their new employees for more than a year at a time? Second, my amendment would also provide requested funding for the national pipeline information exchange. This information exchange would be a comprehensive database of integrated pipeline safety information from PHMSA, from State regulators, industry, and other Federal resources. Of the 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the United States, PHMSA inspects only 20 percent, while States monitor the remaining 80 percent. However, the information the States gather through inspections is neither shared among the States, nor with PHMSA. That is kind of unbelievable. It makes no sense. We should be doing everything we can to analyze and understand this data. My amendment would fund this exchange to help regulators be more effective and to better protect communities like mine from future spills. There are currently pilot information exchange programs in 7 States, and the funding provided by my amendment would allow PHMSA to expand these information exchanges to 25 States. Mr. Chairman, my amendment costs absolutely nothing from the American taxpayers, not one dime. The increased funding would come from a modest increase in user fees paid into the pipeline safety fund. These user fees are paid for by the oil companies that profit enormously from the oil and gas flowing through the pipelines that PHMSA oversees. Oil companies are seeing record profits from a booming oil and gas development industry. This is leading to more miles of pipeline and more risks for local communities like mine. The least they can do is ensure that the Federal oversight of the industry is keeping pace with the growth because, when pipelines fail, it is our local communities and our constituents, not the oil companies, who suffer the most. My amendment takes a small step forward to help strengthen the pipeline safety and oversight, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, again, I urge the adoption of this amendment. I have a classic example of why it is needed, and I ask for your consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Vote No. 276 I am recorded as voting ``no;'' however, I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 289, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1335, which would undermine the proven and effective management of our Nation's fisheries. For nearly 40 years, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, MSA, has worked to protect America's fisheries and coastal economies. In more recent years, it has established programs to protect and restore depleted fish stocks, ensuring these resources will be around for years to come. And, Mr. Chairman, these programs are working. In fact, last year marked the lowest number of fishery stocks subject to overfishing or overfished. Ensuring that fish stocks are healthy is essential to the long-term success of the fishing industry and to food and job security. But protecting and restoring these stocks require that we both acknowledge the need to manage our fisheries and fund the science necessary to properly assess their health. Unfortunately, H.R. 1335 does just the opposite. Instead of working in a bipartisan manner to improve and modernize MSA, H.R. 1335 would dismiss and roll back existing effective management efforts. It would weaken proven management standards. It would reduce the efficacy of fish stock rebuilding programs, and it will undermine existing laws that work in concert with MSA to protect our fisheries. And it would create gaping loopholes that allow for overfishing and mismanagement under the guise of increasing flexibility. These misguided provisions would threaten the viability of an entire industry and harm the health of our oceans simply to benefit a few special interests. Mr. Chairman, effective fishery management ensures a sustainable industry by accounting for uncertainty and environmental change. And MSA works hand in hand with other environmental legislation to ensure the long- term viability of fishery resources. Yet H.R. 1335 needlessly unravels this well-balanced system by undercutting other existing protections under key longstanding laws like the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Mr. Chairman, there is bipartisan agreement on the need to protect and promote America's fishermen and the fishing industry, but rather than building on what is already working under current law, this bill would gut the proven management system that is currently in place. We should work together and be striving to enhance smart, effective management and provide the resources our Nation's fishing communities are asking for. H.R. 1335 is shortsighted and counterproductive, and I urge all my colleagues to oppose it.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of May as Preeclampsia Awareness Month. Despite great strides in maternity care over the years, there is an immediate need for further research into preeclampsia as well as related hypertensive disorders of pregnancy--eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. While at least 5-8% of pregnant women suffer from these conditions each year, 60% of preventable pregnancy-related deaths are the result of preeclampsia alone. These diseases occur only during pregnancy and the immediate post- partum period, affecting the health, and sometimes the lives, of the mother and baby. And those women who develop preeclampsia during pregnancy can feel the effects years later; these women are four times more likely to develop hypertension later in life, and are twice as likely to develop heart disease, stroke, and blood clots. The only known cure for preeclampsia is delivery, which is often conducted prior to a pregnancy being full term in the context of an emergency situation. This is not ideal for the woman or her baby. As a nurse and longtime public health advocate, I know that robust funding for maternal and child health research and education is one of the most important investments we can make. I strongly encourage Congress to prioritize continued research on preeclampsia and related diseases. Let's protect women and children from this progressive and often misdiagnosed disorder.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes on May 20 and May 21, 2015 and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 250: ``no,'' rollcall No. 251: ``no,'' rollcall No. 252: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 253: ``no,'' rollcall No. 254: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 255: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 256: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 257: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 258: ``no,'' rollcall No. 259: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 260: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 261: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 262: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 263: ``no.'' Personal Explanation

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the Record my strong opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. This harmful bill undermines key investments in science and innovation, as well as our nation's commitment to world class research, including the research that is taking place in my congressional district on the Central Coast of California. Specifically, this bill cuts several important programs at NSF, including research and development related to climate science, natural hazards, and renewable energy. Furthermore, H.R. 1806 cripples support for international research collaborations--an instrumental tool at UC Santa Barbara, which has led to groundbreaking research and produced multiple Nobel Prize winners. As we move to affirm our nation's leadership in science and technology, we should be working in a bipartisan manner to strengthen our investments in scientific research--not weaken them. This bill is sadly a step backward for American innovation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1806.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following Roll Call votes on May 18, 2015 and would like to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Roll Call #240: YES Roll Call #241: YES Roll Call #242: YES

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes on May 19, 2015 and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 243: ``no,'' rollcall No. 244: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 245: ``no,'' rollcall No. 246: ``no,'' rollcall No. 247: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 248: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 249: ``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes on May 14, 2015 and May 15, 2015 and would like to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 228: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 229: ``no,'' rollcall No. 230: ``no,'' rollcall No. 231: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 232: ``no,'' rollcall No. 233: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 234: ``no,'' rollcall No. 235: ``no,'' rollcall No. 236: ``no,'' rollcall No. 237: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 238: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 239: ``no.''

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. 225: ``no,'' rollcall No. 226: ``yes,'' rollcall No. 227: ``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record my strong support of H.R. 2048, the USA Freedom Act of 2015, which I am proud to cosponsor. This bipartisan bill will go a long way to reign in the abusive bulk surveillance practices that have left many Americans concerned for their privacy protections. Furthermore, this bill will establish additional civil liberty protections and increased transparency, accountability, and oversight for over our national security practices. As a policymaker, I am proud to support legislation that will protect our values of privacy and civil liberties while also providing our national security officials with the targeted tools that they need to ensure the safety of all Americans. This bill is also a testament to what we can accomplish when we come together to work in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2048.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following Roll Call vote on May 12, 2015 and would like to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Roll Call #216: YES Roll Call #217: YES Roll Call #218: YES Roll Call #219: NO Roll Call #220: YES

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the so-called ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act''. I am disappointed that yet again, Congress is debating and voting on this severely flawed legislation. H.R. 36 ignores the health issues and real life situations that women can face during pregnancy. This bill is not based on sound science. And it is certainly not based on the real experiences of American women and families. This bill is simply yet another attack on women's health. Women want--and need--to make their own personal health care decisions in consultation with their doctor and spiritual advisor--not their Member of Congress. It is time to start trusting our nation's women and families to make their own personal health care decisions. Instead of this political attack on women's personal decision making, we should be focusing on empowering women by expanding education opportunities, ensuring equal pay for equal work and increasing access to quality child care--these are the things that really matter to women and their families. And these are the things that are going to strengthen working families and our economy. We have many critical issues facing this nation that Congress should be focused on and this is certainly not one of them. Again, I would like to state my strong opposition to this misguided and out of touch piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 36.