Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. This amendment is identical to one which was made in order to be considered on the floor last year, when the House last considered this redundant legislation. Perhaps the majority believes it is a waste of time to consider something that has already been voted upon. I only wish they would apply this logic to bills that they bring to the floor because, if they did, we wouldn't be here wasting our time with a bill the House already voted on last year. Stapling two old bills together doesn't make it a new idea. H.R. 4899 is still a bad idea, and it is still a waste of time. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague--my respected colleague--Mr. Waxman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3301. H.R. 3301 would eliminate meaningful review of the environmental impacts of proposed cross-border energy projects. The bill dramatically narrows the scope of environmental review to only the cross-border segment of the energy project, that tiny portion that actually physically crosses the national boundary. Now, this makes no sense. These pipelines, these transmission lines, they are major infrastructure projects. They can span hundreds of miles. They cross through private property, water bodies, farms, and many other sensitive areas, and they carry substances that can catch fire or spill and pollute the environment. To understand the potential environmental impact of such an energy project, we need to look at the project as a whole. Ignoring the potential environmental or safety risks for every part of the project, except that tiny sliver of land at the national boundary, this defies common sense. Imagine going to the doctor if you are feeling sick and the doctor gives you a clean bill of health, but he has only looked at your elbow. That is exactly what this bill does. It green-lights these projects without any meaningful environmental review, and no meaningful review means no opportunity to mitigate potential harm to public health, to public safety, or the environment. That is just reckless. The White House has threatened to veto this bill because it provides inadequate time for environmental reviews, and environmental organizations are universally opposed to it. Thirteen environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, sent a letter emphasizing--and I quote from their letter: ``This legislation could severely limit environmental review and public input to a narrow cross-border segment of projects, thereby precluding review of the full project's impacts.'' Then National Wildlife Federation says--and I quote from their statement--that this bill ``takes a hatchet to the National Environmental Policy Act.'' The League of Conservation Voters warns that this dangerous bill would gut the review process and effectively exempt the projects from the National Environmental Policy Act. These environmental projects--these energy infrastructure projects will last for decades. We need to understand the impacts of these projects before they are constructed, so that we can protect public health and safety and the environment. Ignoring the impacts will not make them disappear. H.R. 3301 defies common sense, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, last month we recognized May as Preeclampsia Awareness Month. A life-threatening disorder that can occur during pregnancy or the postpartum period, preeclampsia is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity, affecting hundreds of women and babies each day. Preeclampsia is a rapid rise in blood pressure that can lead to seizure, stroke, organ failure or death. And while all pregnant women are at risk, all too often the symptoms are dismissed as typical pregnancy complaints. One way to save the baby from preeclampsia complications is through delivery, which is oftentimes conducted prior to a pregnancy being full term in the context of an emergency situation. Pre-term birth can lead to significant and costly health challenges for a baby. Moreover, there is a strong relationship between preeclampsia and future cardiovascular disease. Women who develop preeclampsia during pregnancy are four times more likely to develop hypertension later in life and are twice as likely to develop heart disease, stroke, and blood clots. In this way, preeclampsia during pregnancy can have ramifications throughout a woman's adult life. That is why awareness building, as well as research and prevention, are so important. I urge my colleague to work together to ensure that by next May we have done all we can to support these important efforts.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of smart and sustainable use of our precious ocean resources. We depend on a healthy ocean for so much--for food, livelihoods, recreation, and more. That is why scientists, managers, and entrepreneurs from across the country are currently in Washington, D.C., to discuss critical marine policy issues as part of Capitol Hill Ocean Week. A key issue on the agenda is the responsible management of our Nation's fisheries. America's fisheries are rich, both economically and culturally, because we have smart laws that prioritize sustainable resource use. Under these laws, our fishing industry alone contributed $199 billion in sales and 1.7 million jobs in 2012 alone. These laws, however, are being threatened by partisan legislation recently passed by the Natural Resources Committee. This bill--which I call the ``Empty Oceans Act''--would override key environmental laws, erode fisheries, and hurt our coastal economies. It is no way to manage our ocean resources. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the ``Empty Oceans Act'' and find a better path forward.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to remember those who lost their lives and to recognize those who were injured on May 23 in my district in California. The rampage and mass shooting in Isla Vista rocked this small beachside community. Again, we mourn those lost--George Chen, ``James'' Yuan Hong, Weihan ``David'' Wang, Katherine Breann Cooper, Christopher Ross Michaels- Martinez, and Veronika Weiss--and we support the injured as they heal. Our community grieves, but Isla Vista is a special place and one that has come together since the tragedy to emerge stronger. We can learn from their strength. Unfortunately, Isla Vista joins a long list of those who have grieved because of mass shootings. Even in the 18 days since this incident, more communities have joined the list of those who mourn: Seattle, Chicago, Norfolk, and Las Vegas. As the father of one of the victims implored: Enough is enough. Not one more. That is on my wristband. We must not let the attention fade. We must not let the drumbeat fall silent. Congress has the power to act, and we must. The rampage and shooting that rocked my hometown was, sadly, just one of many incidents that occur across the Nation. It is wrong to think we can do nothing to stop this carnage. It is factually wrong, and it is morally wrong. It is simply not a reflection of who we are--who Americans are--as a people. Americans do not simply give up on hard problems. We work together to find consensus, even though these are thorny, difficult issues. Greater gun safety and the Second Amendment are not mutually exclusive. Law-abiding, responsible Americans have the right to own guns; but each of us should also feel safe in our homes, in our parks, and in our communities. The Isla Vista tragedy has shown us that, when warning signs of violence are seen, we must act, but our communities need the tools to do so. While we may never be able to prevent each and every single violent act, it doesn't mean we should do nothing. Our communities demand that we try. I share with you my constituent's heartbreaking questions: They talk about gun rights. What about Chris' right to live? So I join the chorus of those who are so rightly frustrated with the status quo and with this Congress. They have said to our Congress: not one more. Today's resolution is an important step in that direction. We must condemn the violence. We must remember the victims. We must support the living. On behalf of my community, thank you, my colleagues and the communities that you represent, for your prayers. Thank you for your support during this difficult time. It means a great deal to all of us on the central coast of California, but let this not be the end of the conversation. I am looking forward to working with each of you to do all we can so that there is not one more. We can act, and we must.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday night, my home community was rocked by unspeakable violence. It left six students and their assailant dead and 13 others injured. Friday's rampage in Isla Vista, California, has touched the community in a powerful way. IV, as it is affectionately called, is a special place where people know their neighbors. Everyone is presumed to be a friend, and bikes are more common than cars. On Friday, IV joined a growing list of small communities touched by unspeakable violence. Today, we continue to mourn those we lost: George Chen, ``James'' Cheng Yuan Hong, Weihan ``David'' Wang, Katherine Breann Cooper, Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, and Veronika Weiss. We reach out to the injured who need our support as they heal, and we pray for the many others affected, including the families and friends the victims left behind. Our community grieves, and we struggle to make sense of the senseless. For many in a variety of places, this sadness and grief is also a frustration, frustration that more could have and should have been done to prevent this tragedy from the start. We think of other places where similar rampages have occurred so recently: Tucson, Carson City, Seal Beach, Atlanta, Oakland, Seattle, Aurora, Oak Creek, Minneapolis, Newtown, Washington Navy Yard, Santa Monica, Fort Hood. How many more of these mass shootings do we need before we act? We have all seen how a violent incident can bring public attention to the need for sensible gun safety measures. We know that we must keep these weapons out of the hands of violent individuals; but all too quickly, the attention fades, the drumbeat quiets, and we are left with inaction. I sincerely hope that this time will be different, but it won't be unless we, as Congress, act. The American public wants universal background checks. They want limits on high-capacity magazines, increased school safety, and stronger gun-trafficking penalties, and that is the least we can do. We also need to make sure that our systems talk to each other, so that no one falls between the cracks. It is clear that we need to do more to ensure that our mental health system and our law enforcement can work together to identify potentially dangerous individuals. We need to ensure that parents who are concerned that their son might be a danger to himself or others have a meaningful way to seek help, and we need to ensure that we use the many new tools available, including social media, so when threats are made on the Internet they are taken seriously. The American public's message to Congress is clear, and I heard it so poignantly at the University of California Santa Barbara just 2 days ago: not one more, not one more life should be lost, not one more family should have to grieve like ours, not one more community should be added to this list. Gun safety and the Second Amendment are not mutually exclusive. Law- abiding Americans have the right to own a gun, but each of us deserves to feel safe in our homes and our communities. Over the next few weeks, I will be meeting with local and national advocates on these issues to identify the gaps and to propose ways we can fix them, but no matter how much bills are researched, supported, and proposed, we need our House leadership to commit to us, to commit to the American people that we will have a vote. Bills may pass, they may fail, but the American people have the right to know where their elected Representatives stand. I join in the chorus of those who are rightly frustrated with the system and with this Congress: not one more. I implore my colleagues to make sure that this phrase has yet another meeting: not one more tragedy followed by inaction. This time can be different, and it is up to us.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this harmful amendment. This amendment would cripple the important ocean planning efforts supported by the National Ocean Policy. Our oceans are not just important to coastal regions, like the one I represent on the central coast of California, but they are important to our Nation as a whole, and the many uses of the ocean, such as tourism, shipping, fishing, and construction, are increasingly complex and require a cohesive decisionmaking process. That is why I support funding for the National Ocean Policy, which simply aims to coordinate marine activities in harmony with existing laws. By reducing redundancies and conflicting government actions, we can remove burdens on ocean stakeholders and better focus our efforts on the more serious issues jeopardizing ocean health, and we can give our local communities the ability to make informed choices about how they use their marine environments. A vote against the National Ocean Policy is a vote against government efficiency through smart ocean planning. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise with a heavy heart. On Friday night, my home community was rocked by unspeakable violence, which left six students and their assailant dead and 13 others injured. The rampage shook the communities of Isla Vista and the University of California in Santa Barbara, Californians, and the Nation. Last night, I joined with my community at UCSB and in Isla Vista to honor those we lost. Together, we have taken the first steps towards making sense of the senseless. It will be a long journey. We have many questions, and over the weeks and months ahead perhaps more will be posed than we can answer. But we will work through it together. While we all struggle to make sense of this tragedy, I want to thank you, my colleagues, and communities across the Nation for your prayers, your kind words, and your support. This act was fueled by hate, but in the wake of this tragedy, we as a Nation have shown that in a dark time we do not walk alone, we do not grieve alone, so we will not have to heal alone. Today, we remember the victims: George Chen; ``James'' Chung You-on Hong; Way-han ``David'' Wang; Katherine Breann Cooper; Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez; and Veronika Weiss. We send our deepest sympathies to their families and to their friends. We lend support to the injured. We pledge to stand with the Santa Barbara community, and all those touched by violence, to do all we can to prevent this sort of tragedy in the future. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask that the House observe a moment of silence for the victims, for their families, their friends, the UC- Santa Barbara community, and all who mourn in the wake of this senseless tragedy.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight my amendment, which will be considered later today, to improve TRICARE for our military moms and their families. Doctors are now recommending that new moms exclusively breastfeed their babies, but we know that, despite their intentions, far too many women who want to breastfeed these infants find the cost of lactation supplies and support to be a barrier to that choice. While most women covered by private health insurance have access to these services, women with TRICARE do not. That is why I introduced the TRICARE Moms Improvement Act, which will be on the floor today as an amendment. My amendment would end this discrepancy--this disparity--and would create a parity of access to health care for servicemembers, along with private civilians. I urge my colleagues to join the many medical groups, women's organizations, and military family associations which support this effort. Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to the serious gaps in our cancer care system, a system the Institute of Medicine has deemed in crisis. For too many cancer patients, the process of a cancer diagnosis and treatment is overwhelming. Patients must navigate treatment provided by multiple providers, with little help to coordinate the treatments, the side effects, and the psychosocial impacts. While some providers involve their patients actively in their cancer care, we need to make it the standard, not the exception. That is why I have introduced the Planning Actively for Cancer Treatment, or PACT, Act with my Republican colleague, Representative Boustany from Louisiana. The PACT Act would provide a personalized roadmap to cancer care developed by the patient and provider. These plans have been shown to improve patient outcomes, increase patient satisfaction, and reduce unnecessary utilization of scarce health care facilities. That is why cancer patient research and provider groups like the Lymphoma Research Foundation and the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, they all support this bill. With the PACT Act, we have an opportunity to make cancer patients better, along with the health care systems that care for them. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, all you need to do is watch one episode of ``Mad Men'' to know that women in the workforce have come a long way. While we would like to say that everything is better now, we certainly know that is not the case. On the central coast of California and across the United States, women continue to earn less than men for equal work. Child care costs more than college tuition. Access to earned paid family leave, maternity leave, and sick days is lagging. These are barriers for women, but they also have a ripple effect on their families and on our local economies. We are not powerless to address this, and that is why I hosted an open community forum last week to explore the many ways that we can support an economy that works for women and families. That is why we need a vote on the Women's Economic Agenda, a slate of legislative proposals to strengthen the middle class and our local economies. Because we know that when women succeed, America succeeds.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and honor Adele Rosen as the recipient of the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara's 2014 Woman of Valor Award and for her years of leadership in our community. Ms. Rosen has been an active member of the Santa Barbara community for 50 years. She has long been a dedicated and active member of the Jewish Federation, which has been a strong force for good in the Santa Barbara community for many years. During her years of service, she has served as President of the Jewish Federation's Women's Division and currently serves on its Women's Planning Commission. In addition to her work with the Jewish Federation, Ms. Rosen is the director of the non- profit Beyond Tolerance Education Center in Santa Barbara. This center has been a wonderful contribution to our community, working to teach thousands of school children about the causes, instruments, and dangers of discrimination and violence. Ms. Rosen has also served as a board member of CALM, which strives to prevent, assess and treat child abuse in Santa Barbara County, a sustaining member of the Women's Board of the Santa Barbara Art Museum, a life member of Hadassah and Congregation B'nai Brith Sisterhood, Friend of Ensemble Theater, and the Santa Barbara Symphony. Ms. Rosen's commitment to helping others and strengthening our community is truly an inspiration. May we all find the perseverance and passion that has inspired Ms. Rosen to leave her indelible mark upon our community.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have long been a supporter of a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate, or SGR. The flawed SGR harms providers and consumers alike and keeps us from true innovation in the health care sector, but for too long, the conversation has ended with everyone recognizing a problem but no one willing to find a middle ground to fix it. Instead, we lumber from patch to patch, kicking the can down the road with piecemeal delays or fixes here in Congress, such as we are doing today. These disagreements let the issue linger, causing more instability in our communities while the cost of a fix continues to rise. That is why I have been so proud to be part of crafting the bipartisan, bicameral SGR fix policy. This policy provides a positive payment update to our providers, pushes us toward a system rewarding quality and fixing the GPCI, ensuring that central coast providers and others will finally gain accurate Medicare reimbursement. But today, this bipartisan process is being derailed once again. By tying a delay of the individual mandate to this policy, the House majority has poisoned such a bipartisan process. Access to health care for more than 50 million seniors and persons with disabilities is a serious matter. These partisan games could very well end our Nation's best shot at amending a bad policy. I urge the majority to pull this bill, go back to the negotiating table with all of us, and help us fix Medicare provider payments once and for all.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a critical issue that is hurting our communities, it is hurting our economy and our environment, and that issue is climate change. Climate change is already having real impacts, affecting real people and real communities with more extreme storms, severe droughts, heat waves, and more. We are beginning to see long-term and serious impacts on public health, on agriculture, and natural resources. Of course, climate change not only impacts us here onshore, but offshore as well. Ocean acidification, one of the most serious impacts of climate change, is changing the chemistry of our oceans and threatening the economic future of our coastal communities. As our oceans absorb more and more carbon from the atmosphere, they grow more and more acidic, threatening many marine organisms and the communities that depend upon them. Experts are telling us that today's rate of ocean acidification may be unprecedented in the Earth's history. It is estimated to be increasing 10 to 100 times faster than any time in the past 50 million years. Ocean acidification threatens everything from the tiny plankton to form the foundation of marine food webs, to the larger shellfish that we all enjoy. These impacts will not only hurt our ocean ecosystems and environment, but they will significantly hurt our economy as well. The oceans support one in every six American jobs; so without healthy oceans, we stand to lose a lot of American jobs and economic opportunities, not to mention the cultural, ecological, and recreational losses to our coastal communities. In my district, there is a diverse array of fishermen, scientists, and nongovernmental organizations who are all seriously concerned about this issue. They are coming together to find ways to better understand and mitigate the effects of ocean acidification on key fisheries and ecosystems. While the initial costs may be felt locally, the long-term costs of ocean acidification will be felt around this globe. We simply can't afford to continue ignoring this critical problem. While we certainly must cut the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change and ocean acidification, we must also prepare for the inevitable impacts. That is why I am working with my colleagues to find bipartisan solutions to increase our understanding of ocean acidification and to develop adaptation strategies. That means supporting efforts to increase research and to monitor a better understanding of the problem, and it means coordinating and planning on a local level to prepare communities for changing coastal landscape. That means forming strategic partnerships to increase our capacity to find creative solutions. There are many things we can do to help, but there is one thing we must all agree upon: inaction is not an option. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to help prepare our communities and our economy from the impacts of climate change. We cannot afford to sit on our hands and do nothing. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking action to save our oceans to combat global climate change.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the millions of women who now have access to essential preventive health services, including birth control, without financial barriers. Nearly every American woman will choose to use birth control at some time in her life. It helps women plan for the time they are healthy enough and financially ready to start a family. That is better for her and for her family. That is why the Institute of Medicine deemed it an essential preventive health service for women. Women across the Nation support it being available to them with no copay. Now, some women have found that their bosses think they know better than they do, that their CEO has more at stake in her health care decisions than her doctor. This is not right. Every woman has the right to be in charge of her body and her health. Suggesting otherwise is offensive, out of touch, and out of bounds.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. There is an argument on the other side of the aisle--in fact, we heard it just a few minutes ago--that we shouldn't take action to address climate change because doing so will hurt poor people. That is a particularly galling statement because the truth is that the world's poorest have the most to lose if we don't take urgent action to cut carbon pollution. Poor people are on the front lines of climate change. World Bank President Jim Yong Kim says that, unless we address climate change, ``We could witness the rolling back of decades of development gains and force tens of millions more to live in poverty.'' According to the United Nations Development Programme, without coordinated global action to address climate and environmental threats, 3 billion more people could be pushed into extreme poverty by 2050. That is the reality. The world's poorest will be the most affected by the impacts of climate change, and yet they have the fewest resources to adapt to or respond to it. To hear the other side tell it, the only way to protect the health and well-being of poor people is to weaken EPA's ability to cut carbon pollution, and that is nonsense. It is time to stop denying the science and accept reality. We need to take action now to cut carbon pollution. The longer we wait, the higher the costs will be, especially for the poor. Indeed, addressing climate change is in the economic self-interest of all of us. Consider recent comments by Robert Rubin, who was a universally respected Treasury secretary. During his tenure, the budget deficit was reduced from $290 billion to $70 billion, the Dow Jones Industrial Average more than tripled, unemployment decreased to 4.3 percent, and more than 18 million new jobs were created. Senator Bob Dole described Secretary Rubin as a man of honesty and integrity. Alan Greenspan called him one of the most effective secretaries of the Treasury in this Nation's history. When he resigned in 1999, Secretary Rubin received glowing tributes from Democrats and Republicans alike. Over the past year, Secretary Rubin has focused on the threat of climate change to our economic well-being. Here is what he said about climate change a few weeks ago: ``There are a lot of really significant monumental issues facing the global economy, but this one supersedes all else.'' Experts are telling us that inaction on climate change threatens the global economy. Responding to this threat isn't about disadvantaging ourselves; it is about seizing opportunities. There are already 143,000 solar jobs and 80,000 wind jobs in the United States. Winning the global clean energy race will mean millions of jobs and faster economic growth. Our competitors in China and Europe understand this. We risk being left behind if we don't recognize it as well. We should abandon this bill and start getting serious about climate change and the economy.

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3826 is about denial. It denies the realities of climate change. It denies EPA the ability to do its job. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, and EPA has used that authority under the Clean Air Act to propose rules to improve the quality and safety of our air. These EPA rules are crucial to mitigating the harmful impacts of climate change, especially given the majority's refusal to take meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. H.R. 3826 would nullify these proposed rules and restrict EPA's ability to write new ones. This not only does nothing to address climate change, it also creates tremendous uncertainty for the power sector. The bill also bizarrely restricts EPA to considering only pollution control technologies being used in the United States when setting new power plant standards. In other words, if a viable technology is being used abroad, EPA must pretend it doesn't exist. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must determine the best system of emission reduction for new coal-fired power plants, and it must set standards based on this best technology. This bill would block EPA from considering pollution controls used outside of the U.S., even if such systems are readily available and proven abroad. As the global leader in innovation and technology, it is absurd that we would bar the EPA from even looking at the best technologies available just because of where it is being used. My amendment would make a commonsense correction to this problem. If adopted, it would simply allow the EPA to consider all existing pollution control technologies, regardless of where they are being used. For example, the EPA has proposed standards for new coal-fired power plants that would achieve greater carbon pollution reduction through the use of carbon capture and sequestration technology, commonly called CCS. If coal is going to be part of the clean energy future, CCS is precisely the kind of technology that we need to encourage. Understanding this, EPA and others have provided evidence to our committee that CCS is both feasible and available, and that coal-fired power plants with CCS are moving forward. Some of these projects are in the United States, but some of them are being pursued abroad; but without my amendment, these improvements or projects abroad would not be considered by this innovation. This is ridiculous and wrong. I want to be clear. This amendment will not make this a sensible or reasonable bill, and I will be voting ``no'' even if my amendment should be adopted; but my amendment would at least avoid the embarrassment of the United States Congress requiring a science-based agency to pretend that technologies operating in other countries simply don't exist. I know that some of my colleagues like to deny the science of climate change, but I hope there can be bipartisan agreement that we shouldn't deny science just because it is being used by someone else. Effective CCS technologies are already being installed and used in other countries, including our neighbor to the north; and EPA surely should be allowed to consider these technologies. My amendment would simply ensure that EPA can do its job and consider all available technologies when setting pollution control standards. So I ask my colleagues to support this simple and sensible change and support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I would just make the comment that I think there is a little bit of a misunderstanding here. I was not implying that, if there was a technology in another country, such as Canada, it would automatically have to be used in this country. I would just propose, in my amendment, that we wouldn't want to deny a scientist the opportunity to be able to examine other technologies just because they came from a different country, such as Canada. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I will just add that I don't believe the word ``mandate'' or ``require'' is in my amendment. It would just be allowing the consideration of proposals and technologies from other countries, not just the United States, as far as my amendment was concerned. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It makes a small change to the bill, as I just said, which would allow EPA to consider all available technologies when developing pollution controlled systems. This is an idea that really should have bipartisan support. My colleagues across the aisle often say how the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers, yet that is precisely what this bill does. It not only declares which technologies can be winners, but it doesn't even allow all available technologies to be considered. The bill allows polluters to keep polluting while our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences down the road. My amendment won't make this deeply flawed legislation something I can support, but it will at least allow EPA to look at the full picture when making its decision. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, Friday, February 28, 2014 was Rare Disease Day. And that is why I rise to let Americans know the importance of research, recognition and advocacy that is critical for individuals facing a rare disease diagnosis--and their families. The over 6000 rare disease can be characterized by a large range of disorders and symptoms, some of which are relatively common. In the United States, a disease is considered rare when it affects fewer than 200,000 persons, and 50% of rare diseases affect children. While we have made important stride in the diagnosis and treatment of many rare diseases, far too many remind without any treatment or cure. Additionally, these individuals are too-often misdiagnosed, or given the wrong treatments due to a lack of scientific knowledge and information. Despite these troubling facts, there is some good news. Scientific progress continues to make it possible to cure previously-untreatable conditions. For example, the Ear Foundation of Santa Barbara, California has recently done ground-breaking research into Patulous Eustachian Tube (pET) dysfunction. This rare disease occurs as a result of the Eustachian tube in the ear continuously staying open. Because symptoms include a feeling of ear fullness or oceanic roaring sounds, many physicians are unaware of the disorder and as such are unable to properly diagnose. Thanks to similar research organizations, patient groups, private foundations, and federal research leaders like the National Institute of Health (NIH), patients with rare conditions are finding increased relief. Additionally, Congress has been making moves to encourage better coordination among researchers to develop cures and treatments for rare diseases. For example, the National Pediatric Research Network Act, a bipartisan law I co-authored with Congresswoman McMorris-Rodgers from Washington, was an important step to facilitate the creation of pediatric research consortia through NIH focused on improving pediatric disease research, with a special emphasis on rare diseases like spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). With better coordination, researchers can quickly share best practices while fostering partnerships to make research and clinical trials more accessible to those afflicted. The next step that Congress should take to support individuals with rare diseases is to pass H.R. 460, the Patient's Access to Treatment Act (PATA), into law. This bipartisan bill that I coauthored with Congressman McKinley from West Virginia would stop insurance companies from moving vital medications--often treatment for rare disorders--into costly ``specialty tiers,'' ending a significant financial barrier for insured individuals to access the care they need. With over eighty cosponsors thus far, this bill has the opportunity to affect positive change in the lives of thousands of patients and their families. I encourage my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this legislation to support all Americans currently living with rare diseases and those who will be diagnosed in the future.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote on February 25, 2014 and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 63: ``yes''; and rollcall No. 64: ``no.''

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. As we know, California is in the middle of a severe drought, an emergency with no significant relief in sight. We must do all we can to responsibly manage this situation, working with State and local officials to ensure that our farmers, our businesses, and our constituents have the resources they need now and in the future. While we work to address the current drought situation, the emergency, we know that severe droughts like this one will only become more frequent in the future due to climate change; and we must do all we can as we deal with this emergency to also prepare for the next one. My amendment simply requires a study of the resiliency and adaptability of Bureau of Reclamation facilities and projects in California to predict changes to the quality, quantity, or reliability of water resources. Simply put, it will look at how well the Bureau is prepared for the expected impacts of climate change. Like it or not, climate change is real, and it is already happening. We have seen the evidence all around us in more extreme storms, in wildfires, in sea level rising and severe drought. Water is gold in California. Scientists have long warned that climate change will make droughts, shortages of water, particularly in the Western United States, longer, stronger, and more frequent. So rather than bury our heads in the sand denying the science, we should be doing all we can to make our infrastructure more resilient and adaptable. At every point in our water infrastructure, from reservoirs to kitchen faucets, we need to find sustainable ways to lessen the impact of severe droughts like this one. That means more conservation, more efficiency, and more recycling, to be sure, but it also means increasing the resiliency and adaptability of existing infrastructure to maximize the limited resources we have. That is what my amendment is all about--preparing for the future. Simply lurching from crisis to crisis, from drought to drought, is no way to govern, and that is exactly what we have been doing. According to a FEMA study, every dollar spent on predisaster mitigation reduces the cost of future damages by $4. The drought emergency may not be destroying structures and infrastructures, like some of our extreme storms do, but it is definitely causing serious damage to our crops, to our critical habitats, to our livelihoods. Yet the underlying bill does nothing to address these serious problems, and it does nothing to alleviate the drought emergency in California, and it does nothing to prevent any in the future. Instead, it uses the drought emergency as an excuse to repeal Federal environmental laws to preempt California law, and it would set a dangerous precedent that would have lasting implications on how water is managed throughout the West. That is why the bill is opposed by the State of California and numerous local government agencies, fishing and hunting organizations, editorial boards, and national environmental groups. Rarely has such a diverse coalition come together to oppose a piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, instead of wasting time on a divisive bill that is going nowhere, we should be working together to find comprehensive solutions that get our communities the resources they need. I want to be clear, my amendment does not fix the serious problems with this underlying bill, and I will oppose the bill even if my amendment is adopted. But my amendment will at least move us one step closer to properly preparing for future drought emergencies, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.