Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, important to the health and safety of our Nation. Recent tragedies in the health care community have underscored the need for us to address it and pass a robust compensation package for victims. The President has called for America's nurses, firefighters, and other first responders to be vaccinated against smallpox. Ensuring our frontline health care responders are resistent to smallpox would enhance our ability to respond to an attack resulting from this kind of an outbreak. But this initiative is failing, and to make the program work we need to guarantee our first responders that they and their families will be compensated if they are harmed or killed by the vaccine. If the administration insists that these people be vaccinated against the disease, then now more than ever it is critical that we provide the peace of mind that these frontline people deserve and need. They do not want handouts. They just want to know that if something happens to them, they and their families will be taken care of. It is not too much to ask. But I can tell you that the bill before us, as it is currently drafted, will not provide that level of assurance. Before I came to Congress I worked as a public health nurse for many years. These are my colleagues that we are speaking of. And I know what it is like to be on the front line. If you will not take my word for it, listen to the American Nurses Association. They represent the interests of 2.7 million nurses across this country, and they have heard from their members. They oppose this bill because it is insufficient to make the program work. First, the bill before us does not guarantee that this compensation program will be funded, and without a guarantee of funding, nurses and other first responders who serve their country and become harmed by the vaccine will have no assurance that the bill's promises will be kept. Second, this bill puts unfair caps on the wage compensation an injured nurse or other first responder can receive. These caps would unfairly penalize those families who lose their main source of income. We should reject this bill; and instead, we should pass legislation such as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have crafted with our colleagues and with input with direct guidance from these first responders. Our legislation would ensure that medical benefits and the compensation in this bill are funded for years to come. It would recognize and compensate the longer-term loss of wages that could result from such an adverse effect, and it would allow families who lose their main source of income because of the vaccine that they be fully compensated for their loss. This bill would tell nurses that if they take this risk and serve their country that their families will not be left without resources or hope. Ultimately, the risk of adverse effects is low. Perhaps 200 people out of the 10 million that we want to vaccinate could be affected, but it is so important that we provide the assurance that if a person is one of those 200 people they will be compensated adequately. Congress now has before it the opportunity to instill, first, confidence in our first responders and truly prepare us for the possible nightmare of a smallpox outbreak. The administration has been disappointed thus far in the turnout for the vaccine. If the wrong kind of legislation is passed, the turnout runs the risk of remaining small, thus, not meeting the goal of the administration. If this bill before us is not effective, this is our opportunity to fix it. Let us take the time to get it right so that we can create this shield against a bioterrorist attack in the form of smallpox. I urge my colleagues to support their first responders, to protect America from the threat of smallpox. Defeat this bill. Let us take the time to get this right. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, what an honor it is for me to follow after my esteemed colleague from Ohio, the ranking member of the subcommittee that I am also a member on, where we would have very much appreciated being able to debate and discuss this legislation before we find it today on the suspension calendar. Later today, we will take up the legislation and will be addressing the matter of smallpox vaccine compensation. It goes without saying that during the past week, with tragic incidents of death as a result, some serious concerns have been raised about the safety of this vaccine. These incidents speak even more forcefully for the need to do more research, find more information, and provide more screening about the smallpox vaccine. But if the administration insists that America's nurses, firefighters, and other first responders must be vaccinated against this disease to provide a protection, a bioterrorism protection shield, then now more than ever it is critical that we provide the peace of mind that these first responders need. Our first responders must know that in the event of an adverse or even fatal reaction, their needs and the needs of their families will be taken care of. The overall goal of the administration is to make sure we are prepared for a possible outbreak of smallpox as part of a terrorist attack. But this initiative is failing. These medical and public safety professionals know very well the risks of this disease and the vaccine, and few have been willing to step up and take it. Understandably, they want to know that they and their loved ones will be taken care of in case something goes wrong. It is not a lot to ask, but they do not at this moment have that assurance, and these recent tragic cases show that their concerns are not unfounded. The bottom line remains that we must pass a fair compensation plan in order to make the smallpox vaccine program more attractive and palliative to those who are asked to be first responders and to take this protection. That is the goal of all of us in the House today. The Institute of Medicine has reported that the absence of such a plan is a major barrier to an effective vaccine program; but the bill that is on the floor today is not going to give nurses, firefighters, and other first responders the assurances that they need to be vaccinated. It imposes unfair caps on lost wage reimbursements. It does not guarantee that the promises in the bill will be funded. And it will not work. First responders in our communities have spoken clearly. In fact, a few hours ago we stood together on Capitol Hill as they told us what plan will work. The House of Representatives needs to listen to these people. The nurses are my colleagues. I served with them on the front lines for over 2 decades in my community in Santa Barbara, California. They tell me that the House should reject this bill. We should pass this legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have crafted with our colleagues and with our first responders' input, again, the goal being that the President wants our first responders to be prepared in the event of a smallpox attack, and we want to help them. But this bill and the efforts to block alternative proposals are simply making our nurses, our firefighters, and our other first responders feel even more uncomfortable about stepping up and volunteering to take this vaccine. The bill before us today provides a $262,000 lifetime cap at $50,000 per year. This could perhaps in some instances last only 5 years. Consider this: as someone who perhaps is the bread earner for their family, perhaps the sole support for their children, who weighs this compensation package against the risks, albeit small, but if they are, they could be devastating, and to know that is the bottom line that is going to be offered under this legislation and with that no guarantee that the funding will be there year after year as more and more first responders are asked to take this extra step. As a contrast, our alternative provides nurses and first responders with the confidence they need because it guarantees that the funding will be there for them. If it is a small number who are at risk, as the administration and as the Centers for Disease Control say, then we should be generous with these people. The alternative that we had hoped to propose provides a compensation of up to $75,000 per year, but with no lifetime cap, and this is the legislation that we ask that we be allowed to debate and vote on on the floor. We ask that our colleagues reject the bill before us today and let us debate this measure in fairness to our first responders.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The Federal budget reflects our priorities. It demonstrates our values, our commitments to those less fortunate in our society, and our ideas for building a better America for our children and our grandchildren. The Republican budget resolution before us today makes a mockery of these ideals. It would not spur economic growth, it would underfund the country's critical challenges, and it would lead to chronic deficits for the foreseeable future. Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it incredulous that this resolution is before us today. Just last night hostilities began against Iraq. We are asking our men and women in uniform to make incredible sacrifices, including leaving their families behind, to serve their country. Sadly, we worry that some may make the ultimate sacrifice. But where is the sacrifice from those who benefit from these tax cuts? Many of them are the wealthiest in our society. This is shameful. The Republican resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible tax cut package that will not encourage economic growth, and this country simply cannot afford it. These provisions are ill-considered and so unfair to the vast majority of working American families. They should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I say this as one who has often voted for tax cuts, including the last tax bill. I believed then and I believe now there were many excellent provisions in that measure, but we were also in a very different time. The huge surpluses have morphed into huge deficits, and we are now in a war on terrorism and in Iraq, both of which will have huge mounting costs. The cost of the war in Iraq is not even mentioned in this budget. And our domestic challenges, prescription drugs, education, veterans' health care, are still unmet. We should not proceed with more tax cuts while we face chronic deficits and critical unmet domestic and international challenges. Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to my moderate Republican friends. Many of you have spoken convincingly on this floor about the dangers of unchecked deficit spending and the irresponsibility of passing these costs on to our children. We have worked together on countless issues, like funding for schools, protecting our environment and addressing rural health care issues. I know you are all deeply committed to meeting the needs of this country, and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. I do not see how you can support this budget. The tax cuts called for in this budget will bring endless deficits, robbing us of our ability to meet our country's needs now and for the foreseeable future. We can do better. We need to reject this Republican budget today. I believe that the Spratt substitute meets the priorities that our country values. The tax cuts are targeted to those which will jump- start our economy. Programs are funded, education and veterans' health care and the environment, that the people of this country need and demand, and this is done in a fiscally responsible manner. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and to vote for and support the Spratt substitute.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. We should not be capping the awards for pain and suffering that an injured patient receives when they have been harmed by their doctor. This puts the burden of rising insurance rates onto the innocent patient rather than the insurance company. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules which was not made in order. My amendment would set caps in the bill of $250,000 or the total compensation package of the CEO of the insurance company representing the doctor in the case, whichever is highest. It is not fair for insurance companies to pay their executives millions of dollars, give them bonuses, increase their pay when they are trying to deprive victims of their rightful compensation. In these days of Enron and MCI WorldCom, I believe that Congress should be siding with injured patients over corporate executives. The Nation's largest medical malpractice insurance company pays their CEO $9.7 million, but even so they apparently cannot keep paying for the pain and suffering of patients their clients have injured and so they keep raising their rates. You have to wonder about priorities. This is about Nathaniel and Linda. This amendment that I propose promotes corporate responsibility. It is a more fair approach, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in support of H.R. 389, the Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act. As co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition and Caucus, I was proud to join with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) in introducing this bill last year and again this year. And I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. For the last few years, Congress has passed several bills to expand the use of automatic external defibrillators, or AEDs. We have provided protections for good Samaritans, encouraged State and local governments to place AEDs in their buildings, and provided funds for their communities to purchase these devices. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I have recently been urging the Architect of the Capitol to acquire AEDs and place them around the grounds. We hope we will see movement on this very soon, and now, with this legislation before us, we are starting to get them into schools. Some have suggested that AEDs will become as prevalent as fire extinguishers. We can only hope so. Rescue professionals know firsthand their cost effectiveness. This bill would create a national clearinghouse of information about AEDs and public defibrillation so that schools can begin placing them throughout their facilities. We do not usually think of children at school as being a high risk group for heart attack, but it has been known to happen, and schools, let us keep in mind, often serve as community meeting places where the public can gather at various events. Think of the times when schools are used as disaster centers. Add to this the parents, teachers and staff at the schools, and it only makes sense to be assured that they have the life saving devices such as AEDs available. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise honored to wear the special scarf today to highlight the global fight to stop violence against women. We know that women account for 85 percent of the victims of domestic violence, but only half of all female victims of violence report an injury, and of those, only 20 percent seek medical assistance. I will shortly be reintroducing legislation to provide women over 18 with domestic violence screening and treatment services. Routine screening by a health care provider for domestic violence would unlock options a woman might not otherwise pursue and allow her to see that shelter and advocacy services may be useful to her. Mr. Speaker, this year, Lifetime Television recognizes the importance of including men in the dialogue to combat violence. This is critical. I encourage my colleagues to participate in the week's events and reiterate the need for fathers, coaches and other male role models to teach boys early and teach them often that there is no place for violence in a relationship.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. No one in Congress supports cloning a human being, but we cannot afford to block research into important scientific areas that may have critical medical benefits to American citizens. The millions who are currently suffering from diseases that have no cures, Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and their families, these millions are desperately hoping that new medical research can provide them relief. The best hope for many of these people may lie with research into somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. This process may allow doctors and scientists to duplicate human stem cells to create medical therapies for diseases, therapies that will not be rejected by patients' bodies. This research and these therapies do not require or result in a cloned human being; but the bill before us would ban that research and take away hope for millions of Americans, just because of fear of the unknown. We can increase understanding of the science involved here and at the same time provide protections against its untoward use. Congress should take its time and consider these issues. We should ban human cloning, as we have, and allow research to go forward. We should set the ethical parameters for scientific research. That is our job, set these parameters which will lead to saving lives and restoring health. On behalf of those millions who suffer and wait and hope, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Weldon bill and to vote for the Greenwood amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and it is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues. I could be no place else. We are really at a crossroads in this country, facing a budget such as we have received from the President to deal with. I want to echo what my esteemed colleagues are talking about with respect to the budget, and I have asked that this chart be left here. It has been referred to already, but it points out clearly the huge deficits, as far as the eye can see is the way we phrase it, and this, after we finally did bring our Federal budget into line in the late 1990s. Maybe this is a good time to mention a quote by the Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, last fall. ``History suggests that an abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force harder choices upon us in the future.'' The administration has no plans to address this budget deficit and, in fact, in this latest budget is proposing to make it much worse. The reckless tax cut that we cannot afford that will not help to restart the economy and, for the most part, goes to precisely the people who do not need it, is what they are proposing. I must be up front and admit that a couple of years ago I did vote for the tax cut, the big one. I believed then and I continue to believe now that it had some good provisions: increasing the child care tax credit, getting rid of the marriage penalty, dealing with estate taxes. At that time we were told we had a $5.6 trillion surplus and that we could afford a tax cut. Clearly, things have changed. Everything, that is, except the administration's approach. I believe it is so irresponsible to propose these kinds of tax cuts to a Nation at war. We are at war in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world against terrorism. We are asking all Americans to sacrifice, and yet this tax cut will fatten the wallets of a few. This is not shared sacrifice. The tax cut that the President is proposing will cripple our ability to deal with an important part of the war on terrorism: our homeland security. We are facing a possible war with Iraq for which there is no mention in the President's budget, and we have ongoing needs such as some I will address in my time today: health care needs of our senior citizens, and others. These are some real problems that we are facing of economic security in our land, of health security, environmental security. I want to talk about just one small example, and I brought it up today with our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. Our country has a huge shortage of nurses, all kinds of nurses. They are the backbone of our health care system. They are critical to our efforts to provide everyday health care to millions of Americans, and they are on the front lines of our efforts to fight bioterrorism. They will be the ones to identify victims, to vaccinate the healthy, to assist doctors in treatment. We have 19,000 nurses in Armed Forces Reserves. We are going to face a continued crisis as they are called up. So last year, Congress passed my Nurse Reinvestment Act. It was a bipartisan effort by my committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and lots of Members worked hard on it, the President signed it into law, Tommy Thompson raved about it and was glowing about it. I want to just read two sentences from his ``Budget in Brief: Fiscal Year 2004'' from the Department of Health and Human Services addressing the national nursing shortage: ``The Nation continues to face a nursing shortage. In 2000, the estimated national demand for registered nurses was over 100,000, 6 percent more than the supply. Demand for nurses is rapidly increasing as a result of a growing and aging population that needs more health care as well as continued medical advances that heighten the need for nurses. The nursing supply is not keeping pace with demand due to a decline in nursing school graduates and an aging of the work force.'' At the time that the bill was signed into law, the omnibus bill of last year, the amount of the budget was increased to a nice size; but then, in this year's budget, it is again reduced. So these are empty words, empty rhetoric, that have come from the administration, just one piece of our complex but very important health care delivery system. This budget request that we are facing this year has a 13 percent cut in the nurses' education and training fund. It slashes funding for advanced practice nursing in half, and it defunds programs to train nurse faculty and geriatric nurses. I talked with Secretary Thompson about this today. I like him; I think he is an innovative thinker and committed to the issues. I asked him about these cuts and his response was, ``Well, yes. We will be sticking with this proposal to cut funding for these programs,'' despite their assessment that the nurse supply is not keeping pace with the demand. They are just not going to do anything about it. I believe, I say to my colleagues, that this is plainly irresponsible. We need to provide the funds to train new nurses, which we desperately need both for our ongoing medical needs and health needs, but also in the event of a bioterrorist attack. We should not be cutting this important program. I urge my colleagues who worked with me to get this Nurse Reinvestment Act to step up where the administration has not. I told Secretary Thompson that we were going to adjust the budget to include sufficient funds for the nurse program. I apologize for making this sidebar. It is part of an overall budget that is way out of kilter, but I think it speaks in a precise way to a matter of great concern to the health and security, really, of our Nation at this time in our history.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. We cannot ask mothers with small children to put in more hours of work without ensuring that their children will be cared for. This bill does not do that. It is unreasonable and flies in the face of family values. We must increase funding for child care to ensure that we do not harm poor families and single parents. Additionally, the abstinence-only provisions of this bill should be removed. Our children should be taught abstinence, yes; but they also need to learn the facts about sex so that they know how to make good choices to protect themselves. Otherwise they will simply get misinformation from television, the movies, and their friends. We must trust parents and teachers to know how to educate their own children. This morning at a hearing here on Capitol Hill, I heard the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, address the Global AIDS Initiative. He said that in addition to promoting abstinence, our U.S. AIDS programs abroad also emphasize full education and protection. If these are our policies abroad, should they not also be our policies here at home?

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to rise in tribute to the memory of a wonderful friend and resident of Santa Barbara, California, Dr. Shirley Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy passed away on January 20, 2003, leaving a void in the Santa Barbara community that will be felt by many. Dr. Kennedy, a long-time resident of Santa Barbara, was well-known for her dedication to political, cultural, and social causes. Born in Chicago in 1926, Dr. Kennedy and her husband, Jim, moved to the Santa Barbara area in 1972. It did not take long for Dr. Kennedy to become a dynamic presence in the community. In 1986 Dr. Kennedy completed her doctorate at Claremont Graduate University and worked as a lecturer at UCSB, teaching classes in political science, black studies, and constitutional law. In addition to teaching, she was also involved in founding the Black Studies department, as well as the Black Cultural Festival which brings art, plays, and other exhibits to the university. Dr. Kennedy was a devoted political activist as well. In 1988 she ran Rev. Jesse Jackson's local presidential campaign, and served as a delegate to the party's national convention. Dr. Kennedy has also dedicated countless hours of volunteer time to numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. She was a longtime member of the NAACP and created two local organizations, Not in Our Town and the Building Bridges Community Coalition, both dedicated to fighting racism and building tolerance. In 2002, through the Building Bridges Coalition, Dr. Kennedy was able to bring an exhibit on a slave ship, the Henrietta Marie, to a local museum in Santa Barbara. This exhibit was visited by hundreds of local schoolchildren and residents, and brought a new understanding of the slave trade to thousands of people. It was her dedication to education and community involvement that made Dr. Kennedy such a special person and I am confident that her legacy will live on for many years to come. The Santa Barbara community suffered a great loss with Dr. Kennedy's passing last month, yet because of her activism and involvement in the community Dr. Kennedy's spirit and teachings will remain among us forever. Dr. Kennedy was a wonderful woman and an inspiration to us all and I am fortunate that this special individual touched my life in so many ways.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time; and I rise grateful for this opportunity today to speak on behalf of my own constituents, to give voice to their tears and their tributes to the seven astronauts we have lost. While this is a blow to the entire Nation, I am especially mindful of the unspeakable loss suffered by those who know them best, especially the 12 children who lost their beloved mothers and fathers. The seven Columbia crew members had embarked on a journey of science and discovery so that we all might benefit from their experience. These men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. space program has long flourished on California central coast, my home. Our region is home to Vandenberg Air Force Base and countless businesses and research centers that have benefited from and infused vitality into NASA's programs. In the name of the seven and in their memory who have given their lives for this pursuit, I pledge to do whatever I can to help our space program recover from this terrible setback so that these important endeavors can continue. Mr. Speaker, the Book of Isaiah teaches us that the righteous ``shall mount up with wings as eagles.'' Our fallen heroes flew like eagles. They came very close to heaven before coming very close to home. May they forever rest in peace.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Utah and all of his colleagues from Utah for bringing this resolution to the floor, for their wonderful and warm words about Wayne Owens; and I wish to extend my condolences to his family, his wife, Marlene, his five children and 14 grandchildren. Unlike many in this Chamber, I was only privileged to know Wayne Owens a very short time; but in the weeks since he has died, I have learned a great deal about this man and his career, how he campaigned in 1972 by walking his entire district, about his courageous vote in the Judiciary Committee to impeach President Nixon, about his commitment to environmental protection which was way ahead of its time, and such a tribute to the land he represented in Congress. I came to know Wayne Owens because of his work on another important issue, the cause of Middle East peace. As a Member of Congress and as a founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Wayne Owens never lost sight of his dream, that one day Israelis and Arabs would put down their weapons and take up the mantle of peace. Because of Wayne's decency and fair-mindedness, he was a rare Middle East expert with credibility in the American Jewish and the American Arab communities. He was respected by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Wayne Owens was the right messenger with the right message, that it is in the United States' interests to vigorously pursue peace with Israelis and Palestinians; that the cycle of unspeakable violence, illustrated so horribly just 2 days ago in Tel Aviv, will only be broken through a negotiated settlement; that Israelis deserve to live in security, and Palestinians in dignity, side by side in two sovereign states. How touching it was that Wayne Owens passed away while accompanying these two of our colleagues who have just spoken on one of his countless missions to the region, that he passed away on the soil of the land he loved so much. In my last conversation with Wayne, we agreed that I would travel with him to the Middle East early this year, and although we will not take that trip together, I hope to honor, in my own way, the memory of this great man and his legacy by continuing on this path. That path will bring us to the day when we can take up and we will wake up to the dawn of Middle East peace. I thank my colleagues again for remembering their cherished colleagues in this fitting tribute. He did the State of Utah proud. His legacy gives pride to our Nation, and his message of negotiated settlement for peace gives hope to our world.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Environmental Defense Center of Santa Barbara, California. This year, the EDC celebrates its 25th Anniversary. The Central Coast of California and our nation have benefited in countless ways from its leadership. This organization has been a pioneer and champion of environmental and health issues in Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. EDC provides invaluable legal services, advocacy and public education on behalf of a variety of environmental causes. There are many issues where the EDC's leadership has been indispensable for our community--improving water quality, protecting endangered species, promoting access to public lands. But I would like to highlight one issue in particular--the fight to end new oil drilling off our beautiful coastline. This is an area where the EDC's expertise is unrivaled and where its counsel to me has been incredibly valuable. As the U.S. Representative for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties--and the newly elected Representative for the new 23rd Congressional district which encompasses the coastal communities in those two counties and Ventura County--I have made the fight to stop new offshore oil drilling a top priority. We have reached a consensus here on the Central Coast that we do not want any more drilling off our coast. We do not want the 36 leases developed and we do not want the life of the current rigs extended. We understand all too well the risk to both our environment and our tourist-based economy that more oil development means. And we are all committed to winning this fight against more oil drilling. EDC's historic leadership in this struggle, in-depth knowledge of the issue, and bright, aggressive attorneys has been an indispensable resource for me as I wage our fight in Washington. This year we took an historic first step by getting the House of Representatives to vote in favor of stopping new drilling off our coast. I want to thank the EDC for all its help in getting my amendment passed. I send my best wishes to the EDC and all of its staff and supporters and look forward to working together to advance our common goals in Washington and on the Central Coast. Good luck on the next 25 years!

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a special citizen of Santa Barbara, Mr. Andy Granatelli. Mr. Granatelli is quite an accomplished man and has contributed so much to the Santa Barbara community. It is only fitting that I have the opportunity to honor him today. Andy Granatelli has been inducted into 20 Halls of Fame, ranging from the American Academy of Achievement to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Hall of Fame. He's been the winner of two Indy 500 races and the Daytona 500 in 1972 and has appeared in hundreds of television and radio commercials in addition to making appearances on television shows such as Laugh-In and Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. But in addition to all those wonderful accomplishments, Andy Granatelli has been a very dedicated member of the Santa Barbara community, and it is for all his local accomplishments that I truly wish to honor him today. On November 2, 2002, the United Boys and Girls Clubs of Santa Barbara County honored Mr. Granatelli at their 20th annual kids auction. Andy is on the board of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and this important organization has greatly benefited from Mr. Granatelli's dedication to our youth. He is also the director of the Unity Shoppe, another important non-profit organization in Santa Barbara. Founded in 1917, the Unity Shoppe has been called ``the mother of all charities''. It is the largest direct distributor of food and clothing in Santa Barbara County, and operates as an actual shop, where clients use scrip to purchase items of their choice. The Unity Shoppe does not receive funding other agencies; it instead relies on the generosity of community members like Mr. Granatelli. In addition to the Boys and Girls Club and the Unity Shoppe, Andy Granatelli is involved with several other community organizations. He is a board member of the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Summit Advisory, the Director of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Council and is a member of the Navy league of the United States. Andy is also a Council Advisory Board Member for the Boy Scouts of America. It always pleases me to be able to honor active community members such as Andy Granatelli. The generosity and dedication of people like Mr. Granatelli make Santa Barbara County a special and wonderful place to live, and I am truly thankful for his devotion.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a wonderful member of the Goleta community, Mr. Charles W. Begg, better known as Chuck. On October 26, 2002, Chuck was honored by the Goleta Valley Girls Incorporated. The event was held at the future site of the Girls Inc. new center, which Chuck has been very supportive of. Born and raised in Goleta, Chuck has been an active member of the community throughout his life. He played on Santa Barbara County's first football team while attending Santa Barbara High School. He was then drafted in 1941 and served in the Army Air Corps. Following his service in the military, Chuck returned to his home on California's central coast and proceeded to pursue a variety of professions, including a stint as a lobster fisherman, a ranch superintendent and an orchid grower. While professionally he has been a valuable figure in the agricultural community, Chuck has also generously contributed to many local clubs and non-profits. He has supported the Boys Club, the 4-H Club, Girls Inc., the Goleta Amvets, the Scottish Society and the Goleta Cemetery. He is also a familiar face on the planning committees of countless BBQs for schools, churches, and other community organizations. His sense of humor and generosity are two of the many attributes that make Chuck such a treasure of Santa Barbara County. By supporting the Boys Club and 4-H Club, Chuck has helped to enrich the lives of thousands of children. It is plain to see why Girls Inc. chose to honor this dedicated man. Chuck Begg truly is a treasure of the Goleta community and I am honored to have the opportunity to pay tribute to him today.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my California colleagues to recognize the remarkable contributions that John Steinbeck made to literature on the occasion of the Centennial Anniversary of his birthday. Below is one of my favorite passages from ``The Grapes of Wrath,'' which commemorates the beauty of California. They drove through Tehachapi in the-morning glow, and the sun came up behind them, and then--suddenly they saw the great valley below them. Al jammed on the brake and stopped in the middle of the road, and, ``Jesus Christ! Look!'' he said. The vineyards, the orchards, the great flat valley, green and beautiful, the trees set in rows, and the farm houses. And Pa said, ``God Almighty!'' The distant cities, the little towns in the orchard land, and the morning sun, golden on the valley, A car honked behind them. Al pulled to the side of the road and parked. ``I want ta look at her.'' The grain fields golden in the morning, and the willow lines, the eucalyptus trees in rows. Pa sighed, ``I never knowed they was anything like her.'' The peach trees and the walnut groves, and the dark green patches of oranges. And red roofs among the trees, and barns--rich barns. Al got out and stretched his legs. He called, ``Ma--come look. We're there!'' Ruthie and Winfield scrambled down from the car, and then they stood, silent and awestruck, embarrassed before the great valley. The distance was thinned with haze, and the land grew softer and softer in the distance. A windmill flashed in the sun, and its turning blades were like a little heliograph, far away. Ruthie and Winfield looked at it, and Ruthie whispered, ``It's California.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a villain and a menace to his own people and to the rest of the world. He is a terrible dictator who has used chemical weapons in his own country and on other nations. He has likely biological weapons and is certainly seeking nuclear weapons. He has invaded his neighbors and defied the international community. He has worked to destabilize the Middle East in support of terrorism. We can all agree he is a threat to international peace and security. His own people and the rest of the world would be better off if he were not in power. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the United States is going to use military force to reduce or eliminate this threat. It seems likely that the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will be sent to the region to disarm his regime and possibly remove Hussein from power. If that happens, I will support our country men as they do their duty and obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. But tomorrow, I will vote against the resolution authorizing the use of force now. This is a hard decision. It is one of the most important votes that I cast. It is a vote of conscience for me, as I trust it is for all Members. And my conscience leads me to vote ``no.'' After careful consideration, I have determined that the resolution before us does not advance our national security. The bottom line is that it authorizes the President to launch a unilateral preemptive attack if he so chooses. Our national security is not served by such an attack. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the use of force in all circumstances. I voted to support military operations in Kosovo, and I stood on this floor and supported the President in the operations in Afghanistan. But I think an authorization to use force against Iraq before we have explored all of our options is premature and potentially dangerous. First of all, international support, especially from the U.N., is critical. It allows us to share the risks and costs of our operations. It lends our efforts legitimacy. Recently, the United Nations has regained its focus on Iraq. It is on the verge of restarting inspections and international support for a stricter inspection regime is growing. The return of the inspectors should be our top priority. They can determine the extent of the threat Iraq represents, and their findings can help us build international support to check the Iraqi regime. I will be supporting an alternative that continues those efforts. This alternative will only authorize force as a part of U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq. A unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq without U.N. support may undermine the multilateral war against global terror. It could drive a wedge between us and those allies whose support we need. In addition, with or without international support, we will have to be committed to rebuilding Iraq or we may be left with a state that is just as dangerous as the current one or worse we could be dealing with a chaotic civil war where we are not sure who has what kind of weapons. Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in addressing this important issue. This is consistent with its lack of attention to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Both are troubling. And a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iraq may lead to uprisings in the Middle East. Friendly regimes could be threatened by extremists who will openly support terrorism. And key moderate Islamic nations, like Egypt, Jordan, and the nuclear-armed Pakistan, could be destabilized. A U.S. attack would certainly further inflame the cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. And I cannot imagine the consequences if Iraq were to attack Israel and Israel were to respond as Prime Minister Sharon has declared it would. An attack on Iraq could lead to the use of the very weapons we want to destroy. In an attempt to survive, Saddam Hussein may use all the weapons at his disposal against our servicemen and women. Finally, a preemptive attack on Iraq turns 50 years of national security policy on its head. We have struggled for 5 decades to help build a world in which nations do not attack one another without specific provocation. In the face of an imminent threat to the U.S., with an obvious provocation, a preemptive attack might be justified. But I have not seen convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat. There is still time to try to resolve the situation using other tools of statecraft, such as diplomacy. The United States would win a war against Iraq. But that does not necessarily mean it is a war that should be waged at this time. At some point it may be necessary to use force. We may have to place our men and women in our Armed Forces in harm's way, but that should be the last resort, only after we have explored all other means and after other measures have failed. For now I do not think the case has been made that force is the only option left to us. It is premature to launch a unilateral preemptive attack, and it would be premature for us to authorize one. I oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Family violence is an epidemic affecting 25 percent of the population, and women account for 85 percent of the victims of domestic violence; but only half of female victims of violence report an injury, and of those, only 20 percent seek medical assistance. Mr. Speaker, along with many of my colleagues, I have been working to address and combat the prevalence of domestic violence in our society. For example, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I authored legislation to provide women over 18 with the opportunity for domestic violence screening and treatment services. In addition, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I have introduced a bill to establish an Office of Family Violence at the Department of Health and Human Services. This new office would facilitate coordination between the health sector, the justice system, and social services in the prevention of family violence. This month, let us remember the importance of the national campaign to raise domestic violence awareness. This campaign is critical to eliminating all forms of violence perpetrated against women, children, and men. We must stop the cycle of violence.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to an extraordinary citizen of California's central coast, Judge Joseph Lodge. As both a judge and a teacher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, there is no question as to how much Judge Lodge has given to the Santa Barbara community and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to honor him. In 1955, after graduating from the University of Michigan School of Law, Joe Lodge began his legal career by working as a clerk for the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit. In 1956 Joe moved to Santa Barbara, which he has called home ever since. He became the first full-time attorney in the Santa Barbara suburb, Goleta, and in 1958, at the young age of 26, he made the decision to run for a part-time judgeship in a local court. In 1965, after the South Coast courts merged, Judge Lodge became a full-time judge in the municipal court, although he still found time to continue teaching at UCSB. In 1998, Judge Lodge was moved to the Superior Court, where he sits now. Judge Lodge holds the distinction of being the longest sitting trial judge in the State of California. Not only has he dedicated the last 44 years to presiding on the bench, but he has also spent the last 42 years teaching an extremely popular criminal justice course at UCSB. Since Judge Lodge has vowed never to retire, the residents of the central coast decided to throw him an ``In-Lieu-of-Retirement Party'' on the evening of Thursday, September 26. The Santa Barbara community has benefited greatly from the many, many years of service Judge Lodge has dedicated. His wisdom and fairness has played a part in so many people's lives and it is truly fitting that we have the opportunity to honor him today.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, seniors back at home have been waiting for years for Congress to pass a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare. Each month, many choose between buying medications and paying rent. I am not exaggerating. They are desperate. To make matters worse, many seniors were told by their doctors this year that they had to go somewhere else for care. This is because an arcane formula arbitrarily cuts the fees Medicare pays physicians. The administration says there was nothing they could do. Now seniors in my district will be told they cannot get other health care, like a pacemaker or a pint of blood, because Medicare is cutting these rates also. And this time it is not because of some formula. The administration is actually doing this on purpose. This will hurt our already stretched seniors. This will also get in the way of efforts to prepare for bioterrorism. Hospitals depend upon Medicare to help pay the bills. These cuts will mean our hospitals will be even more strapped for resources and less prepared. I urge the administration to reject this ill-conceived idea and support our seniors, our doctors and our hospitals.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I request from the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) a definition of the term ``abortion.'' As we prepare to vote on this very important legislation, could the gentleman help us frame what we are voting about? Are we voting about a surgical procedure? Are we voting about emergency contraception? Does an abortion constitute oral contraception or condoms?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as an elected representative but also as a public health nurse and as the former director of the Santa Barbara School District Teenage Parenting and Pregnancy Project. I have firsthand experience with the struggles of many young women around the difficult subject of sex. I have dealt with teenagers trying to cope with the ramifications of bad decisions, and I have seen the terrible results when we turn our back and deny them help. I am deeply troubled by this bill. I consider myself a religious person, and I hold in high respect the deep-seated values and feelings of Americans on the subject of productive health, but no one should have the authority to force his or her personal views upon others. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act does just that by overruling a State's rights to enforce laws and to design its own Medicaid program. This legislation is harmful to women. It would allow health care entities to refuse to comply with Federal, State and local laws pertaining to abortion services and referrals. Under this measure, recipients of title X funds could defy current requirements that enable a woman to receive information upon request about all legal reproductive options. Not only does this legislation deny women access to vital medical care, it is also unnecessary. Current law already protects the rights of individuals with religious or conscientious objection who may opt out of providing abortion-related services if they so choose; but institutions do not have the same rights as individuals, nor should they. Health care facilities exist to provide services. It should be rare when such a facility denies access to care to anyone. And all a health facility is required to do is to give a woman a referral upon request and to provide an abortion only if they choose in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that existing law gives sufficient deference to moral objections. Enacting broader conscience or refusal clauses for health entities only leaves women without medical services that they have a constitutional right to. For decades women have fought to gain access to the reproductive health services that they need. Last year alone, title X services enabled women to avoid 1 million unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would have ended in abortion. This bill would reverse these proven success rates. In fact, this bill is so confusing, it does not even define what an abortion is. And so I respectfully ask the honorable gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) to explain. Is emergency contraception an abortion? How about oral contraceptives? How about condoms or even advice on where to get this information? Before we vote, I respectfully ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) to define what constitutes an abortion.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring my constituent, Fire Chief Robert ``Bob'' F. Neumann for his significant contributions to our Central Coast community. This past May, Chief Neumann retired from the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. Chief Neumann entered the field of fire fighting in 1968 as a firefighter, and served our community as a Fire Inspector, Fire Engineer, Fire Dispatcher, Fire Captain, Fire Battalion Chief and Fire Marshal and became Fire Chief in 1991. Chief Neumann obtained degrees in Fire Science and Soil Science at Cuesta Community College and California Polytechnic State University, both of which are located in the 22nd congressional district. In 1985, Chief Neumann served as the City's Operation Section Chief on the 50,000 acre, Las Pilitas Fire that threatened the City of San Luis Obispo. For the 48 hours that it took to contain this fire Chief Neumann supervised 20 Type-I and 2 Strike Teams. A series of storms combined with a loss of water-shed caused by the Highway 41 Fire in 1994, resulted in extensive flooding in the downtown area of San Luis Obispo in February of 1995. Throughout the 48 hours when the floods ran through the City, Bob served as Fire Incident Commander and helped to avert disaster. Significant moments in Bob's career, during which he displayed exemplary service were also seen in the Highway 58 fire in August of 1996. During this natural catastrophe Bob essentially served as Deputy Branch Director of the organized command structure. The City of San Luis Obispo has been most fortunate to have been served by Chief Neumann for 27 years. I am proud to congratulate Bob on his remarkable record of achievement during his 34-year career.