Floor Statements

I thank my colleague from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the majority's misguided budget.

Forty-seven years ago when seniors were the most uninsured group in our Nation, we made a promise that their health care would be guaranteed; and because of that promise, millions of older Americans today have quality, affordable health care, and they and their families have peace of mind. But

the majority's budget seems to break that promise by ending Medicare as we know it.

Instead of a guarantee, seniors would get a hope and a prayer, otherwise known as a voucher. This voucher, fixed in price, would be worth less and less each year, and health care costs incurred by individual seniors would increase by at least $6,000 a year.

Their plan would raise Medicare's eligibility age, delaying the promise of a sound retirement for millions of working Americans, and the bill would whack away at Medicaid which provides long-term care for low-income seniors and the disabled and pass the buck to cash-strapped States where its future would be uncertain in tough budgetary times like today.

Mr. Speaker, those promoting this plan to end Medicare argue that we have no choice if we want to bring down our deficits, but their plan doesn't bring down health care costs. It just shifts those costs onto the backs of our Nation's seniors.

Today's seniors will lose important benefits that they currently enjoy today, like access to free preventive screenings and reduced prescription drug costs through the closing of the doughnut hole under ObamaCare, a term I am proud to use. The plan would weaken Medicare itself. As the voucher program draws off healthier, younger seniors, it leaves behind the oldest and sickest, those the private insurance market won't cover.

This plan will cause untold harm to our Nation's seniors and their families who today rely upon Medicare for the promise of quality, affordable health care.

You know, 47 years ago we did make a promise, a promise that is working for millions of American seniors and their families. We cannot break that promise. I urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's budget, the Ryan budget.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Majority's misguided budget.

Forty-seven years ago, when seniors were the most uninsured group in our nation, we made a promise that their health care would be guaranteed.

Because of that promise, tens of millions of older Americans have been assured of quality, affordable health care and a life of dignity.

Because of that promise, tens of millions of Americans have avoided bankruptcy and upended lives trying to find a way to ensure they or their aging parents receive the medical care they need and deserve.

But the Majority's budget seeks to break that promise by ending Medicare as we know it.

There are a host of problems with this proposal:

Instead of a guarantee of health care seniors would get a fixed amount voucher to help them partially pay for an insurance policy, assuming they can find one.

And given that the Majority also seeks to repeal the law that outlaws preexisting condition exclusions, as well as annual and lifetime coverage limits, there is no guarantee a senior would be able to find a plan, much less an affordable one.

This voucher would be for a fixed amount, meaning it would be worth less and less with each passing year.

In California, this would mean seniors' out of pocket costs would rise by at least $6,000 each year.

The bill would also raise Medicare's eligibility age, delaying the promise of a sound retirement for millions of working Americans.

This would mean over 5 million Californians would face the struggle of finding and paying for health care for 2 more years before they even qualify for the limited promise of care of the Majority's voucher program.

In addition to ending Medicare, the Ryan budget would whack away at the Medicaid program, which provides long term care for indigent seniors and the disabled.

Medicaid funding would drop and the responsibilities would be pushed onto the states, where seniors and persons with disabilities would have no assurances of coverage.

Anyone who has seen what has happened to state budgets across the country over the last few years should be under no illusions that hard pressed states won't cut Medicaid funding in tough times--they are doing it today!

Mr. Chair, my colleagues promoting this plan to end Medicare and slash Medicaid have argued that it's really the only choice we have.

They will argue that health care costs are bankrupting our nation and we simply have to

make these changes in order to bring down our deficit to manageable levels.

And they will argue that these changes don't affect seniors today, only those off in some distant future.

None of those arguments hold water.

First, we do need to address our deficit and that means getting health care costs under control.

But their plan doesn't bring down health care costs--it just shifts those costs onto the backs of our nation's seniors.

Second, it is stunning that their plan again puts the onus for deficit reduction completely on seniors and working Americans, while providing huge tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

Under this budget, no sacrifice is too large to ask of our nation's seniors and any sacrifice is too much to ask of our nation's most well off.

Third, this plan will affect today's seniors.

For example, it repeals important benefits--like access to free preventive screenings and annual wellness physicals--that seniors are already enjoying under Obamacare.

These benefits would be taken away from almost 60,000 seniors in my district.

The Ryan plan would also reopen the infamous ``donut hole,'' immediately increasing annual prescription drug costs for millions of seniors.

This would affect over 6,000 seniors in my district immediately and cost them hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars each and every year.

And finally, the Ryan plan would weaken Medicare as the voucher program draws off healthier seniors and leaves behind the oldest and sickest, thereby undercutting the financial stability of the program.

I can already hear the calls that would come saying we just can't afford traditional Medicare.

Adopting this plan will cause untold harm to our nations' seniors and to the millions and millions of American families who today rely on Medicare for the promise of quality, affordable health care.

We made a promise--a promise that is working for millions of American seniors and their families.

We cannot break that promise.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the ways that young people in my congressional district and around the country are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

Before health reform, young adults were the age group most likely to be uninsured, losing their coverage right after they left home and entered the workforce; but thanks to the health reform law, 2\1/2\ million young people, including nearly 10,000 in my communities, now have health insurance. And some of them have reached out to tell us how the law is working for them and for their families.

Jamie from Santa Barbara wrote:

I got back on my parents' insurance and was finally able to

visit the dentist and get a new prescription for eyeglasses

that I desperately needed.

Maria from Oxnard says:

As a recent graduate. I felt completely vulnerable. With

health care reform, I am now able to stay with my parents'

health insurance, which has given me peace of mind while I

search for employment.

Madam Speaker, health reform is working for young people on California's central coast. We must ensure the law stays strong to keep them and their families healthy, and I'll say the same for this entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life and contributions of our colleague and friend, Donald Payne.

Don will always be remembered for his commitment to his community, which he served with distinction as a local elected official; to his country, evident by 23 years of service in Congress in which he championed education and fair labor practices; and to the global community, where he was a champion for global health, especially malaria prevention and treatment.

Don was a joy to travel with. He combined gentleness with strength, stood with and for the underserved and underrepresented, and always spoke of his commitment. But as he did, he had this warmhearted smile, even his eyes smiled, as he gave voice to the voiceless.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Don Payne's family, with his staff and the people of the Tenth District of New Jersey, and for all of us as we keep his legacy alive.

Don, you will be missed.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a straightforward amendment to H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

My amendment would simply direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a study 1 year after enactment of the law to determine the increase in initial public offerings, or IPOs, resulting from this legislation. The study would also include data specifically on the increases in the manufacturing and high-technology industries.

Though I have concerns about the underlying bill, I plan to support it because I believe it will help small high-tech manufacturers, particularly many in my congressional district, to grow and to hire. However, I also believe we must take steps to ensure these provisions are actually working and our innovative entrepreneurs and small business are getting the support they need.

Madam Chair, as our Nation has struggled these past few years from the economic crisis, we have taken a hard look at what is required for our economy to grow and to thrive into the future. One thing we have all agreed upon is the need to Make It in America.

Of course, this means rebuilding and re-energizing American manufacturing, especially in high-tech. America's greatest export has always been our innovative ideas. For decades, we excelled at both imagining and building new products here in America. But in recent years, we've lost so many manufacturing plants and the millions of quality middle class jobs that came with them.

Small start-ups and local companies have been replaced with large global corporations who have exported our best ideas and our jobs overseas. This has to stop.

Encouraging growth in high-tech manufacturing here at home is critical to rebuilding our economy to better compete in the 21st century. Whether it's in clean energy, defense, or computer science, high-tech manufacturers are creating jobs, spurring economic growth, and helping our Nation regain its rightful place as the global leader in innovation and manufacturing.

What my amendment will simply ensure is this bill is actually accomplishing what it is supposed to accomplish. It will ensure that these reforms are helping high-tech entrepreneurs and small businesses grow and hire more workers.

I'm fortunate in my district to see firsthand the tremendous success these innovative high-tech manufacturers can have in the 21st century economy, companies like Transphorm, Inogen, Trust Automation, MariPro, Owl Biomedical, and Wyatt Technologies. They're all homegrown, often with ideas first hatched at our public universities like UC Santa Barbara and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

These companies, and so many more like them, are all innovating, expanding, and creating quality local, good-paying jobs on California's central coast. These innovative businesses have weathered the economic crisis better than anyone else, and they've done this not by outsourcing jobs or cutting pay and benefits. They are doing it the old-fashioned way by constantly innovating and outthinking their competition. They demonstrate the critical link between education, innovation, and our economy. Well, the reforms in the underlying bill are certainly important. We can't lose sight of the many other critical policies that help nurture and grow small business.

As I meet with small business owners and entrepreneurs throughout my district, I hear about access to capital and cutting red tape, of course. But I also hear about the importance of funding our local community colleges and universities, improving local infrastructure, and protecting critical Federal programs like the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, under the Small Business Administration.

This bill certainly moves us in the right direction, but we need to do so much more. We need to take up a long-term transportation bill that rebuilds our crumbling roads, bridges, and railways without partisan gimmicks and giveaways.

We need to address the ongoing housing crisis that continues to drag down our economy and force families from their homes. We need to close the gaping loopholes in our Tax Code that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.

Madam Chair, this bill is a positive step forward, but as many of my colleagues have pointed out, there is room for improvement. While I hope this bill can be improved as it moves forward, I plan to support it because it includes important reforms that will help small businesses. We must also ensure these reforms are actually helping the businesses that need it most, our small manufacturers and innovators.

My amendment will make that happen, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I said initially, this amendment is simple and it's straightforward. It simply ensures that the provisions of the bill are actually helping small business grow and hire more workers. It's an amendment about oversight and accountability, and it focuses especially on the manufacturers and high-tech innovators that are so critical to future economic growth.

Madam Chair, how much time remains on our side?

I yield the balance of my time to my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 556, which condemns the Government of Iran for its persecution, imprisonment, and sentencing to death of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.

H. Res. 556 rightfully condemns the Government of Iran for its state- sponsored persecution of religious minorities, and calls for the exoneration and immediate release of Pastor Youcef and all other individuals held or charged on account of their religion.

Pastor Youcef is a 34-year old father of two who was arrested over two years ago for the crime of converting from Islam to Christianity. In October 2009 he was tried and found guilty of apostasy. Adding to this atrocity, his sentence of death-by-hanging was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Iran.

Only in oppressive regimes like Iran could this fundamental human freedom to worship as one sees fit could be considered a crime, let alone one punishable by death.

And sadly, the case of Pastor Yousef is only one of many other deplorable religious freedom cases in Iran. It demonstrates the Iranian authorities' utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlights Iran's continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens.

It is deplorable, and this House should denounce it in the harshest of terms. Pastor Youcef deserves to be free. He deserves to practice his faith and be home with his wife and young children. He deserves to have his rights as a human being upheld and respected.

I urge a yes vote on H. Res. 556.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak against this hazardous piece of legislation.

H.R. 1837 is an assault on the environment and on the state of California. It would lead to gridlock in the Delta with potentially disastrous consequences for ecosystems and communities throughout our state.

This bill would undermine years of bipartisan compromise, and would prohibit California from following established precedent in managing its own water resources.

The policies in place today have been carefully crafted by broad consensus and represent the needs of a variety of stakeholders.

The success of these policies prove that cooperative and fair governance are the best way to protect natural resources, promote conservation and boost California's economy.

For example, the Delta Protection Commission has determined that the Delta region provides nearly $800 million in annual agricultural revenues and $250 million in revenue related to recreation. This is due to sound management of the commons by an extensive network of public- private partnerships in my State.

But H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and reliability for Delta communities and farmers--diverting water supply from North of the Delta to agribusiness in the South, and seriously damaging Delta agriculture, a $4.2 billion dollar industry.

Nearly every environmental group in the country opposes this bill because of the devastating effects it would have on the San Joaquin River Valley.

And, hundreds of fishing groups oppose this bill because it would divert water from the Delta, leaving 40 miles of the San Joaquin River completely dry in most years.

This would devastate the restoration of the river, and the salmon and steelhead that depend on it, hurting our state's fishermen, including many that call the Central Coast home.

This bill also disregards the best available science, repeals environmental protections, and damages local tourism.

That's why our state's two Senators, the California Department of Natural Resources, and the California Attorney General oppose this bill.

Mr. Chair, water management is a growing challenge across the nation, particularly in the West.

Developing balanced water solutions is essential to California's long-term economic and environmental health.

California deserves sound water policy that benefits all Californians, not just the needs of a few.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on rollcall 94 when I intended to vote ``yes.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the Record. I mistakenly voted ``no'' just a few moments ago on rollcall 94 when I intended to vote ``yes.''

I do support H. Res. 556 and strongly condemn the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities.

I concur with the resolution in calling for the exoneration and immediate release of Youcef Nadarkhani and all other individuals held or charged on account of their religion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the extensive attacks made on women's health in recent weeks.

We have seen an almost unprecedented number of attacks on women's access to health care, reproductive options, and even prenatal care. From a

hearing on women's health that included a panel with no women witnesses, to public statements diminishing the importance of women's access to a full range of preventive health services, to accusations that prenatal testing is in some way a pathway to abortions, it has been open season on women's health. This is not acceptable.

We need to trust women to know what is best for their families and for themselves, and those of us in Congress should always have their best interests in mind. Women do not deserve to have their health used as a political football.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we've heard some heated debate on this bill. But my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and to do something extraordinarily important: to contain the escalating cost of higher education. I want to be clear: passing this amendment will not prevent the passing of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted upon. Regardless of how one feels about the bill, we should all agree on a major problem facing students and their families.

I'm talking about the skyrocketing cost of higher education putting the American Dream way out of reach for far too many students.

Mr. Speaker, my final amendment is very simple. It says that nothing in this bill should limit the Secretary's ability to reduce the cost of higher education for students.

In 2007, Democrats, working with President Bush, lowered the interest rates on need-based student loans to 3.4 percent at no cost to taxpayers. This change is saving college graduates thousands of dollars in student loan payments. But unless we act soon, the interest rates on these loans will double this summer. That will cost more than 7 million student borrowers at colleges and universities across the country more than $2,800 in additional interest payments.

Mr. Speaker, students cannot afford graduating from college with mortgage-size debt. Student loan debt now surpasses overall credit card debt. We can do something about this.

We need our graduates to be developing the next clean energy source and discovering the cures for life-threatening diseases. We need them to fill vital jobs in our communities, such as nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police. We don't need them to leave school overwhelmed by student loan payments, and we don't want them avoiding higher education in the first place due to the threat of crushing debt. Instead, we should make sure they are prepared for good-paying jobs in the global marketplace, and we can do that by making college more affordable.

But, incredibly, this bill limits the Education Secretary's ability to protect students and taxpayers from higher education costs. With more than $200 billion in aid distributed each year, the Secretary must have the tools to lower costs for students and their families and to protect our Nation's investment in education. We shouldn't be tying the Secretary's hands at a time when we must be utilizing every tool available to keep college costs down. In particular, we should not do this while students face a potential doubling of interest rates on their loans, which will happen this summer if Congress doesn't take action now. The cost of borrowing for a student loan is already too high. Let's not make the problem worse.

Again, my amendment simply states that nothing in the bill shall limit the Secretary's ability to reduce the cost of higher education for students, something we can all agree upon.

So I urge a vote to lower costs for students and hardworking American families, and I'm pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. George Miller).

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of American Heart Month. February, you know, is not just about Valentine's Day, but it's also a month designated to raise awareness of heart disease, especially its impact and effects on women.

Heart disease is the number one cause of death for women. And most Americans, including over 90 percent of primary care physicians, are not even aware that heart disease kills more women each year than men.

We have lost far too many of our loved ones to heart disease. I dare say each of us knows someone, a dear friend or a family member, affected by it. And that's why I reintroduced H.R. 3526, the Heart for Women Act, to increase awareness of and access to care for those impacted by heart disease.

I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in the battle against heart disease.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment, and it is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, so I hope we can all agree to it.

The amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision in the underlying bill that mandates new drilling--mandates new drilling--in the sensitive waters off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in California.

The majority says this new drilling is necessary to help fund the transportation bill. But according to CBO, any new drilling off southern California would, at best, generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue, while the gap in transportation funding is measured in the tens of billions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, leaving aside the specious funding arguments that the authors of the bill have made, the people most affected, my constituents, don't want new drilling. My colleagues have heard me invoke Santa Barbara's devastating 1969 oil spill before. And that's because it galvanized central coast residents and virtually the whole State of California against more offshore drilling. We were outraged by the damage to the environment, the wildlife, and to our economy. And we understood the havoc that similar blowouts would wreak upon our economy, especially tourism and fishing industries.

It's why California permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in State waters in 1994. It's why Californians fought to pass groundbreaking environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It's why some 24 city and county governments, including both Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, have passed measures requiring voter approval before any new onshore facilities to support offshore drilling could be built. And it's why in 2008 then Republican Governor Schwarzenegger told President Bush and Congress to oppose new drilling off the west coast.

More recently, an oil company in Santa Barbara thought it could capitalize on the high gasoline prices by placing a measure on the ballot to allow slant drilling from the shore.

That plan was rejected by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of the voters in the community that was affected by it, Carpinteria, California. That was just in 2010.

We're also aware of the Pentagon's concerns with new drilling in our area so close to Vandenberg Air Force Base. In a 2008 letter to an oil company proposing to slant drill from the shore, the Air Force replied--and I have a copy of the letter to submit with my statement:

A drilling and production facility would present a wide

range of significant operational constraints, inconsistent

with Vandenberg Air Force Base's national space launch

mission.

Mr. Chairman, Californians have spoken loud and clear: we do not want more drilling off our shores. We want to protect our coastline from the devastation that the 1969 oil spill brought to Santa Barbara. Now, because of this legislation, these communities are at risk again. It's not just the new drilling mandate in this bill, but also because the bill would gut critical environmental laws like CZMA and NEPA, the very laws passed in response to the 1969 spill off the Santa Barbara coast.

It's outrageous. This bill specifically denies California--and only California--any role in new offshore drilling decisions under the Coastal Zone Management Act. It also removes California citizens' ability to voice their concerns about new drilling during the environmental review process.

I find it ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry an overarching Federal Government seem to have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its wishes. This heavy-handed, know-it-all approach rubber-stamps destructive drilling, cuts out environmental reviews, and closes down the public input. Might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our Nation.

So, Mr. Chairman, American families want us to pass a balanced transportation bill that creates jobs, fixes our roads and bridges, and ensures that they have a safe way to get to work and back home again. They don't want more politics, especially the kind that puts our coasts, our communities, and our very way of life at risk. So I urge my colleagues to join me in striking these harmful, unnecessary provisions from this bill.

Department of the Air Force,

Office of the Assistant Secretary,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.

Mr. Ray G. Charles,

ExxonMobil Exploration Company,

Houston, TX.

Mr. Robert E. Nunn,

Sunset Exploration, Inc.,

Brentwood, CA.

Dear Messrs Charles and Nunn: We have evaluated your

proposal to leverage your option to lease on-shore, sub-

surface mineral rights beneath 7,780-acres of South

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) to establish oil and gas

drilling and production facilities on 25-acres near Space

Launch Complex (SLC) 5 for directional drilling into off-

shore reserves.

I believe it would be premature to proceed with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) evaluation of your desired location for the

reasons stated below. A drilling and production facility at

your proposed location would present a wide range of

significant operational constraints, inconsistent with VAFB's

national space launch mission. Most significantly, your

proposed location is within the Impact Limit Lines of all of

our active SLCs; it is within the SLC 5 explosives safety

clear zone, eliminating SLC 5 as an optional platform for the

approximate 40 year life of the Vahevala project; and in the

event of a natural disaster or catastrophic mission failure

at any of the SLCs, the presence of the facility would

severely complicate emergency response. Consistent with these

concerns, the Air Force cannot provide you access to your

desired 25-acre location on South VAFB.

We do understand that if you exercise the option to lease,

you will be entitled to reasonable access to onshore,

subsurface minerals. Any drilling and oil or gas production

on South VAFB would still hamper execution of space launches

and create operational impacts. However, there are areas

which may present less operational impact than your proposed

25-acre site west of SLC 5. They are generally in the

northern and eastern portions of South VAFB, within the

7,780-acre option to lease.

We recognize the Air Force's discussions with you regarding

the Vahevala project

have been protracted. Please accept my personal assurance

that this has been due to diligent examination of the

proposal at the several levels of command that support the

space launch mission at VAFB. As a result of this diligent

examination, our military commanders have decided it is

simply not consistent with their most fundamental mission

responsibilities.

As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for

Energy and the Environment, I am keenly aware of the crucial

contributions of your industry to our nation, and to the

national defense. I salute you for your initiatives to

enhance the energy security of America, and look forward to

the possibility of collaborating with you on projects that

might be synergistic with the Air Force mission.

Sincerely,

Kevin W. Billings,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Environment, Safety and

Occupational Health.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just comment to remark that the very project that my colleague from Washington, my friend, described is the project that the local constituents rejected by 70 percent, the project that was mentioned. We are interested, in California, in ending drilling, not just stopping leasing.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation should be investing our time, our energy and creativity into real solutions that put us toward the path for clean- energy solutions for our future. We've seen time and time again that our congressional district doesn't want to be known for chasing after yesterday's energy solutions, but for leadership towards the renewable energy solutions of today and tomorrow.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague, Barbara Lee from California, for yielding to me. And I also want to thank our colleague from New York, Nita Lowey, for her leadership in organizing this opportunity for us to speak, to speak with one voice, we who are Members of Congress, women Members of Congress. And speaking for myself, some of us are mothers, are grandmothers. And my career in public health greatly informs what I'm about to say.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Obama administration's decision to include contraception in their very, very important list of preventive services which will make women's health care more affordable. Let us be clear: This was not a political decision on the part of the administration, on the part of our President, nor was it intended to attack any religious institution. It was a decision based on extensive science and the expert recommendations made by these scientists with the goal in mind of keeping women and their children healthy.

However, a great deal of misinformation has been spread about this rule, and some have decided to, again, use women's health as a political football. But the truth is that this issue is not as divisive as many would like it to be. Almost all women use a form of an FDA- approved birth control at one point or another in their lifetime. This includes 98 percent of Catholic women as well. And most Americans, men and women, believe that women--not their bosses--that women should have the choice of which health care services they can and want to access.

But, you know, some would have us believe that the administration's rule is in some way radical. It is not. Twenty-eight States already require the coverage of contraception in their insurance plans, and the new Federal standard is based on the one that has worked in my home State of California for many years. It has done so without any religious hospitals dropping coverage or firing employees. It's worked perfectly well. The administration now has made the right call, and I speak on behalf of women in this country urging the administration to stay the course.

Now it is my honor and pleasure to yield to our colleague from Maryland, Donna Edwards, a very appropriate person to speak on this topic.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

These days, it seems the Republican toolbox is down to just one tool. Because for all of the energy choices available to America, every Republican energy plan centers on one thing, drilling for more oil.

First it was simply: drill here, drill now. Well, we are. There is more drilling taking place in the U.S. lands and water now than during the Bush administration. Indeed, last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. Clean, renewable energy usage is at an all-time high as well.

Then it was: drill for energy independence. It sounds great, but unfortunately we can't simply drill our way to energy independence. Even with all of the expanded drilling we are doing, the plain fact is that we use too much oil and have too few domestic reserves.

Next it was: drilling will create jobs and put everyone back to work. That claim was based on borderline fictional numbers in a report bought and paid for--surprise--by the oil industry.

Now House Republicans have found a new problem that can only be solved by opening more of the country to risky and reckless drilling: filling the funding gap in the highway trust fund. Their latest proposal would combine three bills to open more of America's most sensitive lands and waters to drilling. Supposedly, this is how we are going to fund repairs to America's crumbling bridges and highways.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that again the numbers don't add up. Proponents of this approach now claim that we can make up the $6 billion a year in the highway trust fund by mandating oil drilling just about everywhere. Yet according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, drilling for oil and gas in protected coastal waters, as they wish, at best would produce only about $80 million per year of assets. That's a small fraction of the funds needed to repair and upgrade America's roads and bridges.

They also want to open up a pristine coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--a special place I've visited--and speed up development of Federal oil shale deposits across the West. Any potential revenues from this drilling, however, will not come close to meeting the needs of the highway trust fund either. Whatever minimal funds do materialize would not be available for several years, maybe a decade. In other words, it is too little and it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, the only way to make progress in solving our current fiscal mess is not to create a new round of giveaways and favors to the oil industry. It would be better to start cutting some of the unnecessary tax breaks that the oil and gas industry now receives, and use that money to pay for the transportation bill. That's because they are unnecessary. Of the world's 12 most profitable corporations last year, fully half are oil companies. Repealing these tax breaks would save more than $40 billion over 10 years, which would alone cover almost all the gap in the highway trust fund revenues. Americans are already squeezed at the pump. There is no reason why they should be handing over tax dollars to these wildly profitable companies.

Mr. Speaker, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the worst in history, crippling the gulf coast economy, destroying livelihoods of fishermen and tour operators, and killing wildlife for hundreds of miles. It was eerily similar to the destructive oil spill of 1969. That's when Santa Barbara beaches were smothered with oil--that's where I come from--that killed thousands of birds, fish, and sea lions.

Now House Republicans want to expose more of our coastal communities, including Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, to the tender mercies of the oil and gas industry. They want to mandate new drilling off central coast beaches despite our community's long-held view that the current drilling should be ended, not extended.

They want to gut the environmental laws of our State that our community has used to protect its coastline from the kinds of devastation that the 1969 oil spill brought to Santa Barbara.

This might be good news for oil companies, but it is bad news for my constituents; and it is bad energy policy.

Perhaps most ominously, Mr. Speaker, this proposal is bad news for the prospect of a new transportation bill. These new oil-drilling provisions are poison pills and could doom passage of this desperately needed jobs legislation.

This is very reminiscent of the manufactured crisis we saw last year to keep the government funded, pay our bad debts, and continue the payroll tax. We all saw the chaos and gridlock those fights produced. We need to put aside this effort to use the transportation bill as a means to push forward the favored policies for an already-pampered industry.