Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Ms. CAPPS

Ms. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman form Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel amendment. The current policy of trying to starve Castro out of Cuba by imposing travel bans and embargoes was put in place in 1960. Since then, Castro has outlasted nine Presidents, from Eisenhower to Clinton, and he may outlast a 10th. It does not seem like this policy has been very successful. It has not driven Castro from power. It has not caused him to improve his human rights' record. It has not prevented him from oppressing his people. In the meantime, the power of American economy and culture has brought about changes in terrible and despotic regimes in various corners of the world. This amendment, and others like it, simply recognizes the truth about the situation; that our current policy is a failure and needs to be replaced by something that has demonstrated success. By easing travel restrictions and the economic embargo we have a chance to overwhelm Castro with America's culture of freedom, democracy, and free markets. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Rangel amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, the House narrowly voted down my amendment to the energy bill to hold MTBE manufacturers accountable for the groundwater contamination their product has produced. Many Members voted ``no'' because of some impending deal to address the issue once and for all. Now reports of the deal have leaked out. They are not pretty, and they will not address the MTBE contamination our constituents face. This deal would provide full liability protection to the MTBE producers and establish an $8 billion trust fund to address the contamination crisis. One big problem: the cleanup of MTBE contamination will cost between $25 billion and $33 billion. It could be as high as $85 billion, dwarfing the deal's cleanup fund. Another problem: at least half of this fund comes from taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, why should taxpayers pay to clean up MTBE contamination? Manufacturers caused this problem, and they should clean it up. It is a deal written by industry for the industry. No surprise that water districts, cities, and counties across the country do not support this deal. They are the people who have to deal with the contamination. I urge my colleagues to oppose the liability waiver of MTBE and any deal like this.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is one of the best vehicles Congress has to address an issue of paramount importance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This bill contains important Middle East provisions, but I believe we could have done better in our efforts to bring peace to these two long-suffering peoples. I support our $2.3 billion package for Israel. Maintaining Israel's military superiority in the region is a prerequisite for any peace agreement, and I am pleased that the bill fulfills the President's request for an additional $150 million for the Palestinians. The President believes, as do I, that it is imperative to deliver U.S. assistance quickly to improve the Palestinians' quality of life and empower their democratically elected leadership. But I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee on Appropriations could have seized this historic opportunity and provided direct funding to the Palestinian Authority. Instead, this bill prohibits direct funding and places excessive conditions and limitations on the aid package. Of course, we must ensure transparency and accountability. But the requirements in this legislation continue to go far beyond what we ever demanded in the Arafat era. This strikes me as shortsighted. We should join with President Bush in strengthening President Abbas, especially in the face of a strong challenge from Hamas in the upcoming parliamentary elections. As Israel and the Palestinian Authority prepare to implement the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza, it is incumbent upon the United States to help both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas confront the extremists on each side who seek to derail this process. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that when this bill comes to the conference with the Senate, we can redirect some of our assistance directly to the Palestinian Authority. Fragile as it may be, a flicker of hope and optimism has been kindled in the Middle East. It may truly be our last hope, and what a tragedy it would be for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for America if we did not do everything in our power to bring an end to this conflict. I thank, again, the ranking member for yielding to me.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown amendment. Over the objections of many of us, the budget resolution arbitrarily cut $10 billion out of Medicaid. According to CBO, Medicaid provides health care for 28 million poor children, 16 million working parents, 6 million elderly people, and 9 million disabled people. Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not illusory. They are not tiny amounts of money. They are billions of dollars that go to our hospitals, our doctors, our nursing homes, and our home health providers. They are the indispensable link in ensuring that these 55 million people Medicaid serves get the health care they need. The cuts will mean one of three things. States will make up the difference. Unlikely, since they are making do with less already. Or providers will take less for the services they provide, and they are already losing money, so scratch that idea. Or the third scenario, poor people will get less health care, and that is, unfortunately, what will happen. I oppose these cuts. I did not support the creation of the Medicaid Commission. The challenges we face in Medicaid are not caused by Medicaid. They are caused by a failing health care system. Using a commission to arbitrarily cut Medicaid funds by $10 billion will not solve anything. It will just pass the buck to those around us, those in society who have the least and who are the neediest. This is an immoral action which does not reflect the values of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time, and I apologize for speaking out of order on an amendment that I did not understand the rules for providing debate time for. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Owens-LaTourette amendment. This bill before us endangers the lives of our Nation's nurses and our first responders, and it threatens the ability of our country to keep control of tuberculosis, and it blocks a critical requirement that nurses, EMTs, firefighters, and other first responders are fitted annually for tight-fitting respirators. Mr. Chairman, these respirators are masks that protect these emergency responders, these health care professionals, from being exposed to deadly diseases like tuberculosis or anthrax or any of the bioterrorist agents that could be used in a terrorist attack. For these respirators to be effective, they must fit properly. And since people's faces change over the years as they gain or lose weight, they must be checked on an annual basis, which is currently required by law. It is a commonsense law. Language inserted into this bill would eliminate that requirement. The Owens-LaTourette amendment would protect current law and the requirement for annual fit-testing of respirators. Retaining the requirements that respirators be fit-tested annually is essential to our efforts to control tuberculosis and to respond to bioterrorism. If these respirators do not fit properly, the emergency responders we are counting on to prevent the spread of contagion, disease, and death may become infected themselves, and that would increase the number of patients we have to deal with and reduce our ability to effectively respond. It would certainly affect the ability of caregivers to respond. This is not the right way to prepare our Nation for bioterrorism or public health emergencies. I urge my colleagues to support nurses, to support EMTs, firefighters, and other first responders by voting for the Owens- LaTourette amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of Title IX and pay tribute to the significant advancements made for women's educational and athletic opportunities. Not coincidentally, this year is also the 33rd anniversary of the UC Santa Barbara Lady Gauchos basketball team, this year's Big West Conference champions. I hold a basketball signed by the team members of the 1997 team who participated in the NCAA tournament here in Washington, DC. Any woman who has played for this team can attest to the numerous benefits afforded to them by receiving the same opportunity as men to participate in college athletics. There is a clear interest for women to play sports, and schools must respond. To anyone who disagrees, I would like you to know that the UCSB women's basketball team sells more season tickets than the men's team. So I am appalled that the Bush administration is trying to weaken the enforcement of Title IX in our Nation's colleges and universities. On this anniversary of Title IX, we must stand up and protect it.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and opposition to the Hunter amendment. Religious freedom is bedrock principle for which the United States stands, and which the military is meant to defend. Unfortunately the environment at the U.S. Air Force Academy appears consumed by religious intolerance. Some chaplains encourage cadets to convert their colleagues to Christianity. And one has publicly declared that cadets who do not accept proselytization will ``burn in the fires of hell.'' The football coach is reported to use his position to urge players to go to church and to be Christians. He even went so far as to put a banner in the Academy football team locker room reading ``I am a Christian first and last. I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.'' Cadets who do not go to church are organized into groups called ``Heathen Flights'' by their cadet officers. And high ranking officers, including the Commandant of Cadets, have given the Academy's official sanction to religious events geared towards promoting Christianity, including screenings of ``The Passion of the Christ.'' The problem is so pervasive that the Superinendent of the Academy, Lt. General Rosa, publicly acknowledged it in a speech to the Anti- Defamation League. It is appalling that the young men and women who volunteer to defend our Nation should be subject to religious harassment and intolerance of this kind. It clearly violates the Constitution. And it undermines the unity of the armed forces. If this were going on at University of Colorado, students could easily just ignore it as they probably do almost everything else the school tells them. But Air Force cadets are members of the miltary and part of the chain of command, and all that entails. The Academy tells cadets when to wake up and go to sleep, when to eat, how to dress, where to go and when to go there, when they can leave campus and how they must behave. If the cadets ignore their superiors on any of these issues they would be sternly disciplined. This is why it is critical that the officers and staff at the Air Force Academy not be permitted to inappropriately press their religious beliefs onto their cadets. This is where the coercion that Mr. Hostettler was asking about takes place. The military has a special obligation to ensure that its members do not abuse the extraordinary influence that chain of command gives them. Clearly, that has not been the case at the Air Force academy. And now Congress has a duty to address these concerns. When the Constitution of the United States is being disregarded in such blatant fashion we have no choice. We must act. For that reason I applaud the leadership of Ranking Member Obey and the members of the Appropriations Committee. The language they included clearly expresses our objection to these practices, and demands a plan of action from the Air Force Secretary. I also want to commend my colleague Mr. Israel for offering this same language in the Armed Services Committee. Last month I, along with 45 of my colleagues, sent a letter to the Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation. I am pleased to know that the Air Force's internal investigation of these issues will soon be complete. This is a good first step. Unfortunately there has been a history at the Air Force Academy of trying to cover up embarrassing scandals rather than deal with them. It took considerable Congressional pressure to force the Air Force and the Academy to take the matter of sexual harassment and assault seriously. The Academy's initial response to the issue of religious freedom has not inspired confidence that they are acting differently here. One Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, pressed hard for changes to ensure religious tolerance and was recently removed from her post and her reassignment has the appearance of the Air Force punishing an officer for looking after the spiritual well-being and constitutional rights of all the cadets. So the Congress clearly has enough information to take the step included in this bill. The language in this bill will send an unmistakable signal to the Air Force that we are watching, and we will not allow them to sweep this under the rug. We should not dilute it by passing the Hunter amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome three women Members of Parliament from the main opposition party in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change: the Honorable Thokozani Khupe, the Honorable Paurina Mpariwa, and the Honorable Priscilla Mishiairambwi. In the face of continued repression, this Movement for Democratic Change is working tirelessly to realize democracy for Zimbabwe. The Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues is honored to host these leaders of Zimbabwe today. All three women have a remarkable record of advocating passionately for the issues that affect women and society in Zimbabwe. It is a real pleasure to welcome leaders from other nations who are working to bring about peaceful democratic changes within their country, and I know my colleagues will join me in extending a warm welcome to them today.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Maloney-Shays amendment regarding the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA funding must be released to aid women, children, and men in the world's poorest countries. The UNFPA fund provides critical maternal health in these nations, emergency assistance for refugees, reproductive education, prevention and treatment for HIV and AIDS, and clinical care for infants and children. Yet the President has withheld the U.S. contribution to the UNFPA under false accusations that funds have been used to support coercive population practices in China. Every legitimate investigation of these accusations has proven them false. Furthermore, UNFPA work in China actually contributes to putting an end to coercive practices. It is surely time for the United States to stop withholding funds from the UNFPA. These funds can make all the difference in the world, improving lives and saving lives around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and allow the U.S. to support the world's largest international source of funding for population and reproductive health programs.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my good colleague from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been charged with ensuring that all citizens get a fair shot in the workplace, but now the Chair of the Commission is pushing a reorganization plan which may seriously compromise the agency's ability to protect employees from discrimination. This plan has had neither hearing nor review by this body. Nevertheless, the administration proposal is that many offices will be downgraded while others will experience an increase in jurisdiction and workload without a comparable increase in staff. This is in addition to an already growing backlog of cases which have yet to be investigated. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could say that since the passage of employment antidiscrimination laws that discrimination has been eliminated in the workplace, but the truth is discrimination still exists. Job applicants are all too frequently judged on the basis of their skin color. Women are still subjected to sexual harassment. Persons with disabilities are passed over for employment even when they have the necessary skills. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of the Jones- Capps amendment so that we can ensure that our constituents will continue to find a resource available to them which will protect them from discrimination in the workplace.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, my faith means everything to me. And because of it, I strongly believe that the men and women in uniform should be able to practice their own faith as the Constitution guarantees. Recent accounts paint a picture of considerable religious intolerance at our Air Force Academy. There has been a tide of complaints about harassment of anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian and special treatment for those who are. And the Air Force recently reassigned Captain MeLinda Morton, an Academy chaplain, who spoke out about this issue. These accounts must be thoroughly and publicly investigated. We must avoid a repetition of the initial slow response of allegations of sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy. Last week, I, along with 45 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation. I understand that the DOD Inspector General is looking into the reassignment of Captain Morton. But Air Force investigators looking into the allegations of religious intolerance have not interviewed key people who brought this issue to light, and this does not bode well for how seriously the Air Force is taking this matter. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) had an amendment to direct the Pentagon to protect religious freedom at the Air Force Academy. Unfortunately, it was not made in order. I hope this does not signal that the House will not take this issue seriously. Religious freedom is the bedrock on which this Nation is founded. It would be intolerable if those who risk their lives for American ideals and values are denied the very religious freedom that they are defending.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Massachusetts eloquently stated a minute ago, today this House has a historic opportunity to vote for hope, hope for millions of Americans suffering with devastating diseases. These patients, their doctors and scientists, have reason to hope, the potential that embryonic stem cell research has for developing new treatments for these devastating diseases. One of my dearest friends recently died of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, which causes fatal destruction of nerve cells. The slow death sentence that ALS gives its victims is brutal. The disease took away my young friend Tom's ability to control his own muscles, paralyzing them and ultimately making it impossible for him to breathe. Stem cell research provides hope, not for Tom but for future ALS victims. Scientists believe they can use stem cell research to replace the devastated nerve cells that ALS leaves behind. With heart disease affecting so many of us in this Nation, the promise of embryonic stem cell research has advancements for the human heart which are incredible to think of. Instead of patients suffering because their heart cells are failing and no longer able to pump blood, new ways could be discovered to replace those cells. And with regard to cancer, stem cell research has enormous potential. For example, it could facilitate the testing of new medications and treatments, not in time for my daughter's life, but for her young children's generation. We cannot afford to wait. And it could be used to grow bone marrow that matches a patient and is not rejected by his or her body. In each of these cases, stem cell research holds out promise. It provides hope that longer, better-quality lives are possible. That is what this bill is about. It will expand the ability of the National Institutes of Health to fund this research and improve the chances for finding new treatments and cures. As we have discussed, each year thousands of embryos no bigger than the head of a pin are created in the process of in vitro fertilization. A small percentage of these embryos are implanted and, hopefully, become much-longed-for children. Some of the rest will be frozen, but most are discarded. They will not be used to create life, they will never become children, they will be lost without purpose. But under H.R. 810, with the informed consent of the donor, under strict ethical guidelines, these embryos can be used to give life to millions of Americans. Today, we can give this hope to millions who have little to hope for now. This is an historic opportunity. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to support lifesaving medical research. Support H.R. 810.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today the House can vote to give millions of Americans suffering from diseases new hope. Patients, doctors, and scientists are desperately awaiting the potential that stem cell research has for treating diseases like Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and so many others. My State of California is already on the way. Californians overwhelmingly support this research and decided not to tie the hands of our scientists, not to block the promising new opportunities that stem cell research affords. Now our Congress has the opportunity to follow suit. This is the kind of research we wanted when we created the National Institutes of Health. Federally funded research ensures that the public benefits and that the research is ethically conducted. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment. This amendment guts the long-standing bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas, areas including California, Florida, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Northwest, New England, and the entire Atlantic coast. It is completely unnecessary. Proponents say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to the high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is that the moratoria are not where the resources are. MMS released its latest OCS resources survey just last year. Eighty- one percent of the undiscovered, uneconomically recoverable natural gas in the OCS is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico where drilling is currently allowed and under way. This amendment means drilling in the coastal areas of the United States where there is not a whole lot of gas and oil, where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear they do not want any more gas drilling, and it means gutting the Presidential-congressional moratoria that had been in for decades, reaffirmed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George Bush, every Congress since 1982. State officials have also endorsed the moratoria, including Governor Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger. This House has voted three times in recent years to stop the oil drilling in waters off Florida, California, and the entire OCS. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment. This amendment would gut the longstanding, bipartisan moratorium that currently protects some of the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas. These moratoria areas include California, Florida and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Oregon, Washington, New England, and the entire Atlantic Coast. This amendment is an attack on the moratorium, and an attack on the rights of coastal States and local governments to raise legitimate objections to offshore development that affects their coastlines. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a bad idea for a number of reasons, not least because it is completely unnecessary. Proponents of the amendment say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is the moratoria areas aren't where the resources are. The Minerals Management Service conducts a resources survey every five years. The latest comprehensive analysis assessment was finished in 2003. This assessment includes estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas that is conventionally and economically recoverable. We already know, for instance, that 81 percent of the Nation's undiscovered, economically recoverable natural gas on the OCS is located in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico--where drilling is currently allowed and underway. The amendment would mean drilling in coastal areas of the United States where there isn't a whole lot of oil and gas and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear that they don't want any more drilling. Mr. Chairman, a little history might be in order here. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush announced an executive moratorium ending new drilling off California, Oregon, Washington, Florida and the entire East Coast. President Clinton extended it to 2012. Both actions were met with widespread acclaim by a public that knows how valuable-- environmentally and economically--our coastlines are. And, of course, Congress has supported these actions for the last 20 years by restricting MMS from spending funds to support any new drilling or pre- drilling activities in these areas. In addition, President George W. Bush endorsed both moratoria in his FY 06 budget. State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger--have endorsed the moratoria. And, the House of Representatives has voted three times in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida, California and the entire Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment is bad policy and reflects the misguided attempt to try and drill our way out of energy problems. Mr. Chairman, the United States has 3 percent of the known resources but we account for 25 percent of demand. Despoiling all of our coastal areas in the fruitless search for ``energy independence'' isn't going to work. Coastal communities continue to speak--in strong bipartisan voices--to protect their State's sensitive coastal resources and productive coastal economies. They are too economically valuable to risk with more drilling. It takes only one accident or spill to devastate the local marine environment and economy. Mr. Peterson suggests that his amendment would be limited to exploration for natural gas only, and that this approach would somehow avoid the risks of offshore oil drilling. There are serious flaws with this theory. There is virtually no way to explore only for natural gas without exploring for oil. Moreover, natural gas development also has substantial and long- lasting impacts, including noise, water and air pollution. And it impacts the tourism and fishing industries. Mr. Chairman, last Congress, 56 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted to protect the OCS Moratorium. In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities. A vote against this amendment 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 my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2003 Update Using a play-based assessment methodology, the Minerals Management Service estimated a mean of 76.0 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil and a mean of 406.1 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. introduction This assessment represents an update of selected basins of the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Assessments of the entire OCS were made by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in 1995 and 2000 (MMS, 1996 and MMS, 2001). The next MMS assessment of the entire OCS is scheduled for completion in mid 2005. Areas selected for this update included those where significant new discoveries were made, such as parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and areas where new geological concepts have been developed, such as the Atlantic OCS margin and the North Aleutian Basin of Alaska. Results from this selective update were combined with the year 2000 assessment results from other areas to yield the regional totals presented here. The MMS utilizes a probabilistic play-based approach to estimate the undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR) of oil and gas for individual plays. This methodology is suitable for both conceptual plays where there is little or no specific information available, and for developed plays where there are discovered oil and gas fields and considerable information is available. After estimation, individual play results are aggregated to larger areas such as basins and regions. This assessment is limited to technically recoverable undiscovered resources of oil and gas. Unlike MMS's 1995 and 2000 assessments, it does not contain economic analyses of what portion of these technically recoverable resources are commercially viable. resource summary The MMS estimated that 76.0 billion barrels of oil and 406.1 trillion of cubic feet of gas are technically recoverable from the U.S. Federal OCS. These results are presented by area in table 1, which lists mean values as wells as the 95th and 5th percentile values representing high and low probability cases, respectively. Greater range between the high and low values indicated higher uncertainty in the estimates. These values represent a 1 percent increase in oil resources and a 12.1 percent increase in gas resources when compared with MMS's 2000 assessment. The increases are due to changes in the assessments of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico OCS areas. Both the Alaska and Pacific OCS area resource estimates are essentially unchanged from 2000. The increases also account for the approximately 2 Bbbl oil and 8 Tcfg that were discovered and moved to the reserves category during this time period.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first correct some statements that the gentleman from Oklahoma made in his arguments. He said that 40 percent of the OCS gas is unavailable to leasing. As he knows, Minerals Management Service conducts a survey every 5 years and the latest assessment of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf was done in the year 2003. It includes estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and natural gas. This assessment shows that 81 percent of the Nation's undiscovered technically recovered OCS gas is located in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico where drilling is allowed. And he also claims that it is such a safe industry. I would like to remind him, those of us who live on the central coast of California remember with an indelible mark the 1996 oil spill of platform A that devastated our economy and our environmental resources for decades. We are still living with some of the results of this. This is an amendment in which the House had a vote just a few years ago, a similar kind of amendment in the 107th Congress. Seventy Republicans joined 176 Democrats to block oil and gas developments in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A vote against this amendment will accomplish the same thing, a vote to protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico from new drilling. This amendment is the first step to drilling in areas now off limits, including North Carolina, New Jersey, California, and even the Great Lakes. So we should reject this amendment and not weaken existing protections for our coastal waters. This amendment guts the longstanding bipartisan moratoria that currently protects our Nation's most sensitive coastal marine areas.

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. 159--``no''; rollcall No. 160--``yes''; rollcall No. 161--``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. The budget is a clear demonstration of misplaced priorities. I believe the budget will cut taxes by some 70 to $100 billion. Most of those tax cuts will go to the extremely wealthy in our society. At the same time, the budget will cut Medicaid, which provides health care for the poorest in our society. And just who are the poor people that Medicaid helps: 28 million poor children, 16 million working parents, 6 million elderly, 9 million disabled. Each of us represents a share of these people in our community. Their faces should be before us as we cast our vote this evening. This budget vote gives us a moral choice. We can keep cutting taxes that help mostly the well-off in our society, or we can ensure that the most vulnerable are provided with adequate health care. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair budget.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, 44 Republicans wrote to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the Committee on the Budget chairman, protesting the Medicaid cuts included in the House budget they had recently voted for. Their letter says, ``We strongly urge you to remove these reductions and the reconciliation instructions targeted at Medicaid.'' Their letter correctly notes that the policy should drive the budget and not the budget the policy. That is a good idea. Unfortunately, it seems like one that will not be followed in the impending budget deal. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the budget conference report contains Medicaid cuts, these 44 Republican Members will not buckle to the pressure of the Republican leadership. We all need to stand firm. Just issuing a letter against cuts in a budget you just voted for is not enough. It is important to follow up by not voting for the final bill if it contains the cuts you say you are against. Cuts to Medicaid of this magnitude are going to have real harm to millions of real people. We should reject any budget that indiscriminately calls for millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It would be more aptly called the Teenage Abandonment Act because that is what this bill does. It abandons our teenage children. When I was a school nurse, I was privileged to administer a school- based program for teen parents and pregnant teenagers, helping them to stay in school and support their children. What I saw firsthand was that for these young women, the discovery that they were pregnant presented them with the hardest choices they would ever face. They needed the help of adults to sort through the issues surrounding their pregnancy, but this bill makes sure that many pregnant teenagers will be all alone as they face this problem. Ideally, of course, a pregnant teenager will turn to parents for advice and support. Believe me, those who can and are able, they do. But we do not live in an ideal world. Sadly, not all parents are good. Some parents are abusive; other parents are not equipped to deal with this. And in some awful situations, a parent is responsible for the daughter's pregnancy. In these terrible conditions, it is critical that a young girl coping with severe emotional distress be able to turn to other loving adults for help and guidance: perhaps a doctor, a teacher, a clergy, or a grandparent. This bill discourages that. Judicial bypass sounds easy on paper, not in real life for a teenager. This bill cuts off other support a young woman might have. It abandons her at her time of most critical need. Mr. Speaker, if we want to be compassionate toward young women, really compassionate, we are going to defeat this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Herseth motion to instruct conferees. The House-passed budget cuts, $20 billion for Medicaid. It denies States, health care providers, and low-income working families $20 billion for health care services they vitally need. While closing loopholes and fighting waste, fraud, and abuse is important, there is no way it is going to save near that amount. As our colleague from South Dakota has forcefully stated, a clear majority of the Congress opposes these cuts, and for good reason. Medicaid provides health care to 52 million low-income children, pregnant women, parents and the elderly. It is a critical source of acute and long-term care for 13 million elderly and disabled. These are the people who would be affected by cutting billions out of Medicaid. Since the President took office, the number of uninsured has increased by 5.2 million. Medicaid enrollment grew by 6 million over the same period, covering many people who would otherwise have been uninsured. Even so, Medicaid costs have grown about half as fast as private health care insurance premiums. Between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid per capita spending went up by 6.9 percent, while private insurance premiums went up almost twice that amount, 12.6 percent. And the growth in costs we have seen as a result of the skyrocketing health costs this President has allowed, not Medicaid itself. If these cuts in Medicaid are made, the ranks of the uninsured are surely going to increase even more, weakening our economy, and health care would be more expensive because of fewer regular check-ups and preventative measures and a rise of emergency room procedures. That is why the National Governors Association opposes these cuts. It is why faith-based organizations across the board oppose these cuts. Organizations like the March of Dimes, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AARP all oppose these cuts. That is why a majority of the Congress opposes these cuts. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion. Tell the conferees to remove Medicaid cuts from this budget.