July 30 - August 4, 2001

Human Cloning

I supported H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. In the 21st Century, scientific research has the potential to improve and extend the lives of Americans. The cloning of Dolly the sheep, however, has raised concerns over the possibilities of cloning human beings. In 1997, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) reviewed the legal and ethical issues involved in the cloning of human beings. The NBAC agreed that the cloning of a child is scientifically and ethically objectionable because the chance of abnormalities is so high that experimentation on humans is premature and that cloning of an existing human being may have negative personal and societal impacts.

H.R. 2505 stops human cloning before it begins by banning the creation of embryonic human clones. Once human clones are developed, we will be unable to control their use or prevent their implantation into the womb of a woman. It is best for us to ban human cloning until we can better understand the moral, ethical, and legal implications of such an action. H.R. 2505 passed by a vote of 265-162.

Exploration, Development, and Production of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

I voted in favor of an amendment to the comprehensive energy bill that would maintain the existing protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by striking language in the bill authorizing a program to explore, develop, and produce oil and gas resources in the ANWR. While I support a national energy policy that addresses our short and long-term energy needs, I believe that before we consider development and production in the ANWR, we need a full accounting of the oil and gas reserves that may be available from exploration in the region.

I support a phased approach that fully engages the public in the complexities of this issue. First, based on sound science, we must find out how much oil and gas is available. This can be done with a minimum impact on the environment (i.e. 3-D seismic technology that enables geologists to use computers to determine the location of oil and gas). If significant deposits of oil and natural gas are found, we should move to phase two which is conducting a national dialogue on how to minimize the environmental impact of exploration, and how to balance the impact against wilderness values. Only after these important steps have been taken, should we be considering support for oil and gas development and production in the ANWR. The amendment failed by a vote of 206-223.

I supported two other amendments related to the ANWR. The first amendment would require the money the federal government earns from ANWR oil and gas production go towards two funds - one for renewable energy research and development, and the other, for the environmental maintenance and improvement of federal lands. Absent this amendment, oil and gas production receipts would go to the general government fund. The other amendment would minimize the footprint of drilling activity by implementing a 2,000-acre limitation on the total surface area that may be covered by oil and gas production operations in the ANWR. These amendments passed by votes of 241-186 and 228-201 respectively.

Fuel Efficiency Standards

During consideration of H.R. 4, the Securing American's Future Energy (SAFE) Act, an amendment was offered by Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards for light trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans, to 27.5 mpg by 2007.

Under current law, passenger vehicles are required to meet a CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg while light trucks, SUVs, and minivans must comply with a standard of 20.7 mpg. H.R. 4 already included a carefully crafted compromise that requires light trucks, SUVs, and minivans to increase fuel efficiency by requiring manufacturers to reduce fuel consumptions for this class of vehicles by 5 billion gallons of gas over a six-year period. It is important to note that this is almost twice the amount currently consumed by this class of vehicle. I support this provision because it provides auto manufactures with the flexibly they need to increase fuel economy without compromising passenger safety.

Unlike the language included in the bill, the Boehlert amendment calls for a dramatic increase in CAFE standards for light trucks, SUVs and minivans as early as 2007. This is precisely the kind of increase the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report warns against. Specifically, the NAS panel found that when strict fuel standards were imposed within a short period of time in the late 1970s, smaller and lighter cars were produced. The tactic contributed to increased traffic deaths - including 1,300 to 2,600 additional fatalities in 1993 alone. In addition to safety concerns, such an increase in CAFE would have a major impact on vehicle sales and would result in the loss of American jobs. If auto manufacturers are unable to appropriately phase in expenses related to increased fuel efficiency standards, they will be forced to stop making certain models and need to lay off workers. The auto industry in Washington State alone employs close to 80,000 people, many whose jobs would be threatened if the Boehlert amendment would have passed.

I am pleased that both the auto and steel industries are currently working to increase fuel economy through technologies such as zero emission fuel cells and lightweight steel. I will continue to support these technologies which will significantly decrease emissions, increase fuel economy, and preserve high safety standards that all of us have come to expect from American made cars. The Boehlert amendment failed to pass the House by a vote of 269 to 160.

H.R. 4 passed 220 to 206.

Protecting Patients in Managed Care Plans

I supported H.R. 2563, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, to improve patient access to services they need. For too long, patients have expressed concerns that health plans are denying coverage for benefits or limiting access to specialists when they need them. At the same time that patients are growing frustrated with managed care plans, we are seeing an increasing number of people without health insurance. With the rising number of uninsured Americans, we must carefully increase patient protection while improving access to health care.

H.R. 2563 includes strong patient protections such as prohibiting gag clauses, allowing direct access to pediatricians and obstetrician-gynecologists, and improving access to specialists. Additionally, this legislation establishes a strong independent review process that will ensure that patients receive the care they need in a timely manner.

I supported Representative Norwood's (R-GA) amendment to expand patients' rights to take cases to court while offering liability protection to employers who provide health coverage to employees. Supported by President Bush, the Norwood amendment guarantees a patient new federal remedies to hold a health plan accountable when he or she has been injured by wrongful denial or delay of medical care. Lawsuits will be allowed in both federal and state courts, but non-economic and punitive damages will be capped at $1.5 million. Patients must exhaust the internal and external review process before going to court. The Norwood amendment passed by a vote of 218-213.

I also supported Representative Thomas' (R-CA) amendment to improve voluntary access to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and Association Health Plans (AHPs). By expanding MSAs to all Americans, we can empower individuals to make decisions about their health care. AHPs will allow small businesses and individuals who are self-employed to pool together and purchase health care for their employees at discounted rates now available to only larger companies. The Thomas amendment passed by a vote of 236-194.

Both the Norwood and Thomas amendments strengthen H.R. 2563. By focusing on medical care, instead of lawsuits, we can give patients the tools they need to deal with their health plans. H.R. 2563 passed by a vote of 226-203.

Cost-Of-Service Price Caps

I voted against an amendment to the comprehensive energy bill that would establish a price cap on electricity in the West coast. The amendment would have directed the government to impose cost-of-service based rates on electricity generators selling into the Western market.

I am fundamentally against arbitrary price caps in which government dictates electricity prices rather than allowing a competitive market to do so. Price caps stifle incentives for power companies to become more efficient and discourage consumers to conserve energy. I strongly believe that the role of the federal government is to encourage rather than suppress innovation. That is why I oppose government dictated cost-of service based rates and voted against the amendment, which ultimately failed, by a vote of 274-154.

FEMA Project Impact Funding

During consideration of the FY 2002 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) offered an amendment to restore a proposed funding cut to the Federal Emergency Management Administration's (FEMA) Project Impact program.

Over the last ten years, FEMA has spent $20 billion to help communities repair and rebuild after natural disasters. FEMA's Project Impact program has enabled vulnerable communities to protect themselves from the devastating effects of natural disasters by taking preventive actions that dramatically reduce the potential for disruption and loss. The program helped limit the damages of the Nisqually earthquake in February 2001 through far-sighted retrofitting of some of Puget Sound's most vulnerable historic buildings. While some critics of the $25 million program have expressed concerns about misuse of funds in other communities, I supported this amendment because of Project Impact's importance in mitigating damages in high-risk areas. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by a vote of 190 to 231.