Susan Davis

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to House Resolution 29 into the Record and to revise and extend their remarks.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 29) supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month 2007.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of San Diego's hometown heroes on a very special occasion. Tony Gwynn, who played as a San Diego Padre for 20 years, was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on January 9, 2007 for his great accomplishments in Major League Baseball. He will be inducted on July 29, 2007 along with fellow baseball legend Cal Ripken. It is a privilege to be joined by my distinguished colleagues from San Diego, Representative Bob Filner, Representative Duncan Hunter, Representative Brian Bilbray, and Representative Darrell Issa to introduce a resolution honoring Tony Gwynn for reaching it to the Baseball Hall of Fame. With a lifetime batting average of .338, Gwynn is widely considered one of the greatest hitters in baseball history. Gwynn has 3,141 career hits, with only 17 players beating this benchmark. Gwynn has received eight Silver Bats for the eight batting titles he won--tying him for the National League record. He has not only proven to be a great hitter but a great defensive player, winning five Gold Glove awards. Gwynn has been selected to 16 All-Star teams and played in two WorId Series. Gwynn is an exemplar of superior sportsmanship and a role model for Americans of all ages. In an era when money dominates the game of baseball, Tony Gwynn chose to play in San Diego and remained loyal to the Padres. Gwynn is a well-known philanthropist, supporting the Tony Gwynn and Alicia Gwynn Foundation, the Casa de Amparo, the Police Athletic League, the New Haven Home, the Jackie Robinson Family YMCA, the Epilepsy Society of San Diego, and many more organizations. In recognition of Gwynn's vast involvement in the community, he was named Individual of the Year at the 1998 Equal Opportunity Awards Dinner, was the 1995 Branch Rickey Award winner, and was the 1998 Padres nominee for Major League Baseball's Roberto Clemente Man of the Year Award. After his amazing career in baseball, Gwynn chose to give back to the community by returning to his alma mater to coach the San Diego State University Aztecs. After leading the Aztecs to a conference title in only his second season as manager, Gwynn was named the Mountain West Conference Baseball Coach of the Year in 2004. Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to introduce a resolution today honoring a great man and superb athlete as he is inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, the real issue here is about moving this Nation in the direction of energy independence. It's true that this bill is about increasing royalties for oil extracted from land owned by the American people. Lease agreements from 1998 and 1999 mistakenly did not include the proper royalty language. As a result, the American people lost out on an estimated $865 million in royalties. With this legislation, Congress has an opportunity, and a responsibility, to correct this mistake. We also have an opportunity to roll back unnecessary subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies. But the bill is not about sticking it to the oil industry as some critics have claimed. It is about creating an important funding mechanism for our Nation's energy future. Throughout history, America has been an innovator in technology. Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity paved the way toward harnessing its capabilities. The Wright Brothers flew the first airplane. America was the first to put a man on the moon. Now is the time for America to become a leader in another field: renewable energy. The funding generated from this bill will allow us to significantly increase our Nation's investment in renewable energy. As a Nation, we have become more and more dependent on oil. We simply cannot maintain our current rate of oil consumption. Madam Speaker, let's not wait until we hit rock bottom before making significant progress toward energy independence. When it comes to renewable energy, we must go forward with the dedication and commitment that put America first in flight and put a man on the moon. Let's show the American people that this Congress will set this Nation on the path toward clean, renewable energy.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Home Ownership for America's Veterans Act of 2007 along with my distinguished colleague from California, Congressman Wally Herger. The Home Ownership for America's Veterans Act of 2007 corrects an inequity in the federal Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds (QVMB) program available to a number of states for the purpose of financing home loans for veterans. Specifically, in some states, QVMBs home loan financing is only available to veterans who signed up for military duty prior to 1977. It is time we address this inequity. Our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the opportunity to purchase a home with QVMBs. Further, in our home state of California, only 4.1 percent of our veterans are eligible for a home loan through QVMB bonds. Our legislation extends the program and opens it up to new veterans residing in California and Texas. Congress passed legislation in the 109th Congress making the home loan program available to newly discharged veterans in the other states eligible for QVMBs financing. It is crucial that we act swiftly to give these veterans and their families the ability to purchase and own a home in California and Texas. This legislation will benefit every state eligible for QVMBs by requiring annual adjustments to the federal bond limit indexed to the Freddie Mac Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index. A higher bond limit means California, Texas, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska--the five eligible states--will have the ability to provide more of their veterans with home loans. We must keep QVMB financing compatible with national housing costs. The Home Ownership for Veterans Act of 2007 will help our newly discharged heroes purchase homes while ensuring that state veterans' home loan programs remain viable. Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to introduce legislation to help veterans purchase homes and achieve the American Dream for their families.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Student Relief Act of 2007. This legislation makes college more affordable and higher education more accessible for all Americans. But the bill, as we know, will do much more than help Americans make it to college. As we know, graduates today often spend years paying off their loans. This fall, a young woman named Amy wrote to me and explained the challenges her family faces. Their income is over $60,000 a year. She pays $700 a month in student loans. I am an attorney, she wrote, and my student loans are killing me. Without help, I risk never buying a home or being able to save for retirement. By reducing interest rates, those who graduate from college will save more than $4,500 over the life of their loan. Lower interest rates also mean that college graduates will have more money to contribute to the economy, start innovative businesses, that kind of competition we talked about, and save for their retirements. Do we really want to discourage our young people from taking the kinds of career risks that bring a benefit to society? This Congress has an opportunity to help a new generation become engineers, doctors, business leaders, teachers, public servants, or whatever they dream of becoming. So let us not shackle young adults with spiraling debt just as they reach independence. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4. Three years ago, during the debate on the Medicare Modernization Act, I stood on this floor and told my colleagues that we can do better, that we can do better with a bill for our seniors; and today's vote will bring us one step closer to providing seniors with affordable and reliable prescription drug coverage by allowing the Health Secretary to negotiate drug prices. As we move forward with H.R. 4, we can and we will safeguard future innovation and support lifesaving therapies befitting the 21st century. Representing a district with a vibrant biotech community, I applaud the leadership's effort to ensure that our seniors have choices. This summer, one of my constituents named Judy wrote me, and I quote, ``I have reached the doughnut hole and must now come up with the money for my high blood pressure, diabetes, thyroid, and cholesterol medications.'' The question she asked is, ``which one will I stop taking? I cannot afford all of them.'' We can do better for seniors like Judy, and today, Mr. Speaker, we will.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address a horrible form of identity theft. We have heard plenty lately about the need to take swift action to prevent this serious crime. In 2006, one of the largest data security breaches in history occurred when the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, lost the names, Social Security numbers, and the dates of birth of over 26 million Americans. We hear a lot about security breaches and the identity theft of living Americans. One aspect of the crime you do not always hear about is the misuse of personal information of deceased Americans. This is a serious issue for many reasons. For one, it is their loved ones who pay the price. Months or even years after a family member passes away, surviving spouses or other relatives will begin to receive credit card bills or even phone calls from bill collectors. A predator can go onto certain web sites and purchase Social Security numbers that are sold for purposes of tracking family histories and genealogy. The predator then uses the Social Security number to apply for credit cards, loans, and other forms of consumer credit. There were even reports that a predator was misusing the personal information of a New York City resident who died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In another case, a woman began to receive bills addressed to her daughter who had passed away 17 years before. In my hometown of San Diego, the local news media shed light on another unfortunate case. A predator took information on a woman published in an obituary and used it for identity theft crimes. It was up to her son to repair the damage and put an end to the abuse. I cannot imagine the emotional toll these cases must take on surviving relatives, and I rise today to take action to prevent further cases of this crime. It is time Congress acted to block this form of identity theft from continuing. Predators can collect this information with relative ease giving them a steady supply of Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and the information they need to commit these horrible crimes. Furthermore, this form of identity theft can ruin the good names and pristine credit histories of those who are deceased. Unless we take action, family members will continue to suffer from the misuse of their loved ones' personal information. The legislation I introduce today, the Identity Theft Prevention and Timely Report Act of 2007, requires that the Federal Government inform each national credit bureau when an individual passes away. In turn, the credit bureaus will flag the histories of those who are deceased and potential creditors will know not to issue lines of credit or new loans to those attempting to misuse personal information. Madam Speaker, I urge that we act to stop this vicious form of identity theft and protect the relatives of America's deceased.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, With the support of my colleague, Rep. Jim McDermott, I rise today to introduce the Military Families Financial Security Act. This bill will ensure the brave men and women who serve our country will not have to worry about losing critical services their dependent children need. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces are everyday heroes. I know about the valor of military families from my own experience as a military wife when my husband was stationed in Japan during the Vietnam War. As a wife and mother in a foreign country with two young children, I observed that many servicemembers were also mothers and fathers and were making the same sacrifices I was. Just as these brave men and women are working to protect our Nation, we must likewise protect them and their loved ones through the laws and policies we enact. In San Diego and around the country, some military families rely on the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) for means-tested financial assistance. This safety net program is designed to protect qualifying families from poverty and provides access to valuable social services such as Medicaid. Without SSI, some special-needs families would not be able to cover their medical expenses. Current regulations threaten some military families' eligibility. They face a unique risk of losing benefits due to the way military pay is treated under SSI rules. The Social Security Administration (SSA) considers anything outside basic pay as ``unearned income.'' This method hurts servicemembers and their families since there are more than 30 types of military pay in addition to basic pay. These different pays, considered unearned income, result in higher countable income and affect eligibility. Just a few dollars can make all the difference in the world to these military families. My legislation would change how the SSA calculates income for SSI eligibility by treating most military compensation as earned income. This simple change will keep families eligible for SSI benefits and simplify the administration of this program. In testimony before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Mean Committee, Social Security Commissioner JoAnne Barnhart has indicated her support for such a proposal. The provision would treat cash military compensation and civilian wages alike, and thus eliminate the present unfair and disadvantageous treatment of cash military compensation other than basic pay under SSI. The proposal would increase SSI benefits for most military families with disabled children, which are currently about 3,000 families. It would be a significant program simplification in these cases and would have a relatively small program cost of only $2 million over 10 years. She also mentioned how ``determining the difference in the types of military pay is time consuming and error prone, and the guidelines for making such determinations covers 14 pages in SSA's operating instructions.'' As a proud member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am committed to improving the quality of life of the men and women who serve our country. This legislation is fair, overdue and demonstrates our Nation's appreciation. This legislation will give servicemembers peace of mind from knowing that their duties will not jeopardize their families' eligibility for SSI benefits and related services. I urge you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Women's Obstetrician and Gynecologist Medical Access Now Act, the WOMAN Act. This bill will ensure that every woman has direct access to her OB-GYN. I believe women should not need a permission slip to receive OB-GYN care. Unfortunately, that is the reality faced by many women when they need to see their doctor. Numerous managed care plans require women to visit their primary care physicians before seeking the health care services they need from the providers they want. Denying direct access or forcing women to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops to see their OB-GYN is not acceptable treatment. The WOMAN Act recognizes women have different medical needs than men and the significant role OB-GYNs play in women's health. Women who see an OB-GYN on a regular basis are more likely to receive important screening services, such as pelvic exams, as well as counseling on critical reproductive health issues. My legislation removes the barriers complicating women's access to their doctors. Women will no longer have to contend with the gatekeeper system that can prevent or delay appropriate care. It is easy to understand what a difference direct OB-GYN access makes in women's health care. Imagine, for a moment, a woman in San Diego who works 45 hours a week and has limited sick and vacation time. Now, imagine she has an urgent medical problem requiring an OB-GYN visit. On Monday, she calls from work to make an appointment with her primary care physician. If she is lucky, she gets an appointment for the following morning. She takes time off Tuesday to go see her doctor. Her primary care doctor agrees she should be seen by her OB-GYN and gives her a referral. Tuesday afternoon, she returns to work and calls her OB-GYN for an appointment. The doctor is in surgery on Wednesday, but they offer her an appointment on Friday morning. On Friday she takes another morning off from work, and finally, after almost a week, gets the care she needs. The unnecessary referral process resulted in her taking an extra morning off work and delayed her proper medical care by five days. The patient, employer, primary care physician, and health plan provider would have saved money and time if the patient had been able to go directly to her OB-GYN. The public overwhelmingly supports direct access to OB-GYN care. A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University found that 82 percent support direct access legislation and 63 percent would support it even if their health insurance costs increased. While serving in the California State Assembly, I heard from many women who experienced the same problems I have outlined today. After meeting with women, obstetricians and gynecologists, health plan representatives, and providers in the State of California, I wrote the State law allowing women direct access to their OB-GYN. That law was a good first step; however, it still does not cover women enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. This means that even if a woman lives in a State with direct access protections, like California, she may not be able to see her OB-GYN without a referral if she is covered by a federally regulated ERISA health plan. In addition, there are almost a dozen states which still do not provide women with direct access to OB-GYNs. Women save time and money with better access to OB-GYN care. I believe the time has come to make direct access to an OB-GYN a national standard. I urge you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2007. This legislation would take the long-overdue step of prohibiting chief state election officials from taking part in the political campaigns of federal candidates in elections over which the officials have supervisory authority. As a former President of the League of Women Voters in San Diego and an American voter myself, I know that election officials are entrusted with a crucial responsibility for our democracy. Their only allegiance must be to the will of-the voters, not to partisan political agendas. I think we can all agree that an inherent conflict of interest exists when a state's chief election official is responsible for monitoring and certifying the results of a federal election while actively participating in the campaign of one of the candidates in that election. In the last several years, multiple Secretaries of State have captured national attention and incited great controversy because of their political involvement in elections they were responsible for overseeing. Although such individuals may be honorable public servants with no improper intentions, it is of the utmost importance for the integrity of our democracy that we provide legal safeguards to ensure the public trust is never violated. This is not a partisan issue. The record shows that officials of both parties have in the past held these two types of positions simultaneously. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American people's faith in the integrity of our democracy. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this important legislation to protect the public's trust in the electoral process.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing and honoring those who make a difference in the lives of our young people across the United States. This January marks National Mentoring Month as proclaimed by the President of the United States. It is a month-long celebration honoring those who are mentors and drawing attention to the great need for more mentors. Mentors make a tremendous difference in the lives of our children. When a responsible and reliable adult becomes a mentor, the benefits to the mentee can last a lifetime. Countless stories show the great benefits of a good role model. Chris Moran became a mentor to Joshua Becerra in my hometown of San Diego through the Big Brothers Big Sisters program when he was just 9 years old in 1999. Chris and Joshua have gotten together on a weekly basis ever since for horseback riding, chess, and other activities. The relationship has been meaningful for both. Spending time with a young person gave Chris a healthier perspective on what is important in life--helping others, he said. Joshua, now a student at San Diego's High Tech High, is looking forward to attending college and has already visited UCLA, San Diego State University, and other campuses trying to decide where to apply. Joshua attributes his academic success in large part to his mentor. Joshua plans to study music when he goes on to college and would like to become a professional musician. Chris is helping him locate a college with an excellent music program. These types of relationships between reliable adults and our young people are invaluable. Millions of adults nationwide are acting as excellent role models while providing guidance and advice to our young people--many of whom face problems at home or difficulties at school. Without a good, solid role model, our kids are more likely to drop out of high school or to become involved with drugs or alcohol. Madam Speaker, this resolution honors and recognizes the adults across the United States who are mentors to our young people. This resolution also calls on more adults to become mentors to those in need. Unfortunately, research shows that about 15 million children across the United States are in need of a mentor and a good role model. It is crucial that we begin to reach these children. Finally, this resolution highlights the need to support programs that teach our young people about mentoring and the need to become involved. There are programs, for example, that encourage high school students to become mentors to younger children. These types of programs will teach the great benefits of mentoring at a young age and result in adults becoming mentors later--creating a ``cycle'' of mentoring. Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to offer a resolution honoring America's mentors on the occasion of National Mentoring Month 2007.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007--a bill to allow any eligible voter to vote by mail in a federal election if he or she chooses to do so. In my home state of California, voters already have this right. California is one of the twenty-eight states that already provide this convenient alternative to voters. While I love the ritual of going to the polls to vote, I know that getting to the polls on Election Day is often difficult. For some, it's impossible. That is why I have introduced a bill that builds upon the growing trend of states to bring the polls to the voters. I believe we should try to meet our constituents halfway by increasing access to the electoral process. What I am proposing is not new or even untested. States ranging from my home state of California, to Wisconsin, to North Carolina, to Maine have already adopted this voter-friendly policy. With mail voting, citizens can vote from the convenience of their own homes. They will have more time to mull over their choices and make informed decisions, and they will be able to do so on their own terms. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that some of the biggest supporters of voting by mail are parents, who must schedule time to go to the polls around so many other obligations. Studies have also indicated that adding the option to vote by mail does not create a partisan advantage for one political party over the other. Republicans and Democrats both benefit from similar increases in voter turnout when voters are given the choice to mail in their ballots. In fact, overwhelming support for voting by mail is consistent across nearly every demographic--including age, income level, race, education, employment status and ideology. It is a win-win for all Americans. After adopting a universal right to vote by mail system in 1978, California saw a thirty percent increase in the use of mail-in ballots. In my district of San Diego, over 40 percent of voters opted to mail in their votes during the 2006 election. Other States that have implemented this policy have seen the same degree of support from voters, which is why it is hardly surprising that States offering the option of mail-in ballots often experience greater voter participation. There is also an extremely low incidence of fraud with voting by mail when compared to other methods of voting. As the former President of the League of Women Voters of San Diego, I care deeply about the integrity of our electoral system. Twenty-eight States have already proven this option works, and it is safe. It is time to give voters in the remaining States this convenient, secure and affordable alternative. While I am proud to be from a State where citizens already have this right, I believe democracy works best when all citizens have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard. Right now, an uneven playing field exists between States that already offer the option of mail-in ballots and States that do not. When the same election is more accessible to voters in California than it is to voters in Michigan, the system is unfair. States that fail to offer this choice stand to compromise their leverage in Federal elections by curbing the greatest level of voter participation. We should follow the lead of over half of our Nation's States and ensure a uniformity of rights for all voters. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this effort to strengthen the democratic process and give American voters the choices they deserve.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an inequity facing America's men and women in uniform who seek an education in return for their military service. For years, the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) has allowed thousands of men and women in uniform attend college or to receive vocational training to prepare for a new career after the military. It is an excellent program and one we must preserve. However, Madam Speaker, I would like to remedy an inequity that exists in this program with legislation I am introducing today. To receive the benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill, our service members must pay into the program at the beginning of their military service. A $100 is deducted each month from their military pay for the first 12 months. With the legislation I offer today, our service members would still make the initial contribution. However, this contribution would no longer count against them later on when they apply for federal student aid. In many cases, Madam Speaker, the Montgomery GI Bill alone does not cover the cost for college or job training. Our service members must also apply for federal student aid to cover tuition and other expenses. The Department of Education considers their benefits from the Montgomery GI Bill as ``income''-- thereby reducing the amount they are eligible to receive from federal student aid programs. This legislation goes back to the $1,200 out-of-pocket contribution that a service member made to become eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill. It is not fair to ask our service members to pay the original amount out of their own pocket and then penalize them for it later on. This bill would simply exempt the original contribution that came from their own pocket from the Department of Education's income consideration. This legislation does not present significant cost to the federal government but would go a long way to help America's individual service members afford college. During the last Congress, I offered the provisions contained in this legislation as part of the College Access and Opportunity Act (H.R. 609) when it was on the House floor. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted, but I plan to pursue the issue until we correct this inequity. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to offer legislation benefiting America's military service members and helping them to attend college or receive job training.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Second Opinion Coverage Act--legislation that will ensure the accessibility and coverage of medical second opinions. Imagine that your doctor tells you that you must undergo radical surgery that may threaten the use of a limb or leave you with a serious chronic condition. Understandably, you would request a second opinion from another physician. Most health care groups see the value in such requests and provide patients with a second opinion. Besides giving patients much needed peace of mind, second opinions can benefit health plans by reducing the number of invasive procedures and result in better patient care through increased dialogue about treatment options. However, when I was a member of the California State Assembly, I heard from a number of patients who experienced a glitch in their health care coverage. They noticed the absence of a clear process for obtaining medical second opinions. These patients, many struggling with challenging health conditions, had difficulties obtaining second opinions through their health plans. After meeting with patients, physicians and health groups, I authored a law in California that guarantees coverage of second opinions. Patients, meeting any one of several qualifying conditions, are entitled to a timely second opinion by a ``qualified health care professional,'' within 72 hours in cases of serious or imminent health threat. When another expert is not available within the provider group or network, the organization will pay for an appropriately qualified doctor outside of the plan. Patients are responsible for the costs of applicable co-payments. The law in California was a good first step. Unfortunately, this legislation does not cover individuals enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into 67 million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. I believe the time has come to make access to second opinions a national standard. I urge you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Board-Certified Teachers in Low-Performing Schools Act of 2007. I have been pro-active in promoting professional teaching standards throughout my public service and strongly believe certification is more important now than ever. We know that schools in the United States are falling behind in the core subject areas of math and the sciences. Teacher certification is a step toward gaining ground against other nations as well as working to close the Achievement Gap here in our own nation. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards provides America's teachers with high-quality training and professional certification. Research shows the benefits of this advanced credential. Students of certified teachers showed year-end testing improvements averaging 7 to 15 percent more than students learning from noncertified teachers. Another study by the University of North Carolina found that the depth of learning for students was greater in the classrooms of certified teachers. That is, these students show greater cognitive gains overall than students of non-certified teachers. I am convinced we must do more to encourage our dedicated teachers who are already in the classrooms. My legislation authorizes a pilot program to give teachers with certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards a $5,000 annual stipend when they teach in a low-income school or a school that is underperforming. Professional teaching certification would improve education in the United States and help make our nation competitive and I am pleased for the opportunity to promote this certification in Congress. Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to introduce the legislation today.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of California

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, due to a medical treatment, I was not able to attend votes on December 8th and 9th, 2006. Had I been present and had there been a rollcall vote, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 6407, legislation to reform the postal laws of the United States.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of California

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Dr. William M. Kelso for his distinguished career in historical archaeology and for his contributions to the historical record of the United States of America. From his early professional beginnings as Assistant Field Archaeologist, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1964 to his current position as Director of Archaeology, Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA), Jamestown Rediscovery Archaeology Project, he has consistently demonstrated his earnest desire to further advance the research and support of archaeology in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America. During the 1970s Dr. Kelso served as Virginia's first state archaeologist and established programs and innovative methods and techniques that are currently in use. The broad range of his achievements include his role as Resident Archaeologist, Monticello home of Thomas Jefferson located in Albemarle County, Virginia, and later Director of Archaeology, Monticello, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. Further credentials include his role as Lecturer at the University of Virginia and later Adjunct Professor of the College of William and Mary. Perhaps his most notable contribution was when he served, as Director of Archaeology for the APVA Jamestown Rediscovery project, where his leadership was instrumental in discovering the remains of the English 1607 James Fort. This historic site is the first permanent English settlement in British North America and led to the establishment of English Common law and the first form of representative government in the New World. The archaeological evidence includes structural remains as well as accompanying artifacts representing seventeenth century material culture that documented the location of the fort. Additionally, he served as Historical Archaeologist for the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission and has extensive scholarly publications to his credit as well, that are widely circulated in academia both nationally and internationally. Dr. Kelso has promoted the knowledge and awareness of history and archaeology among the general public. He deserves national recognition for his monumental contributions to our nation's history as the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown approaches in 2007. Thanks to Dr. Kelso, a more accurate story can now be told regarding the arrival and ultimate survival of the first English settlers to land on the soil of Jamestown, Virginia, including the roles of Native Americans and the later arrival of African Americans. This extraordinary effort is largely a gift from Dr. William M. Kelso, who through his dedication, diligence, skill and grit, has illuminated the truth.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to give this administration, any administration, the ability to prosecute, convict, and punish individuals who have committed terrorist acts and who are planning acts against the United States. But we must do this under the guidelines outlined by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Court entrusted this Congress with the duty to reform military tribunals in a matter consistent with the Constitution and international treaty obligations. While the Senate attempted to respect our obligations under Geneva, concern remains. We have heard that on many occasions that this bill will grant the Executive the power to define certain types of interrogation methods that may be inconsistent with common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Now, Mr. Speaker, in response to Hamdan, the House Armed Services Committee heard from current and former judge advocate generals. Mr. Speaker, I listened to them. Their testimony was compelling. Many spoke out against modifying the Geneva Conventions in any way, in anyway, because of the risk that this provision could put our troops in harm's way and could be found to be inconsistent with Hamdan. Congress must ensure that this doesn't happen. In this bill, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we miss an opportunity to be absolutely clear on these points and to show the world that America can be tough on terrorism while staying true to the values we hold so dear.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of America's veterans seeking to start and operate their own businesses. Along with my colleagues Mr. Evans from Illinois and Ms. Herseth from South Dakota, I offer The Veterans Corporation Reauthorization and Enhancement Act of 2006 to ensure our veterans have access to the training, the assistance, and the capital to start and manage a business. Congress passed The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 establishing the National Veterans Business Development Corporation to provide all of these crucial aspects of entrepreneurship to veterans. As a result of that landmark legislation, the Veterans Corporation has provided training to over 8,000 veterans and has helped over 550 veterans start businesses during 2006 alone. Unfortunately, Congress has yet to reauthorize the Veterans Corporation, leaving its funding in question each year. It was an honor to offer an amendment to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2007 (H.R. 5672) in June increasing its funding to $1.5 million for the next fiscal year. Now, I join with Mr. Evans and Ms. Herseth to introduce legislation ensuring funding for this worthy program through 2012. By passing this legislation, we can make sure our brave service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will have access to entrepreneurship training. Those who are courageously fighting abroad deserve the opportunity to start a business and achieve that aspect of the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to act on this legislation and encourage business ownership for veterans.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I missed the following two votes, Nos. 394 and 395, due to a delayed flight from San Diego. I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1496 and S. 203.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I support moving stem cell research forward and believe H.R. 810 will accomplish it in an ethical and responsible manner. It is almost 2 years since my daughter-in-law, Naomi, underwent a kidney transplant. I marvel at the combined results of the many people and years of science and research that came before her which gave her that opportunity . Naomi was lucky and found an eligible donor in her brother. The transplant operation was a success. In fact, just a month ago, our family cheered on Naomi at the Transplant Olympics. It seems like a happy ending, but the story does not end here. My daughter-in-law takes a number of drugs to keep her body from rejecting her new kidney. I hope her body will be able to support her transplant for many years. Hopefully, Naomi will not need to face another transplant for many, many years. Clearly, she may not be able to go to a sibling again. Will new research bring her new hope in the future? Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I have a personal reason for seeing an expansion of the existing stem cell lines. New stem cell lines hold the promise of advancing medical research and providing cures to a number of diseases. After years of work, both the House and Senate passed bipartisan stem cell legislation. Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed this critical bill. Despite a valiant effort in the House, we could not override this veto. We need to think about tomorrow--what kind of future do we want to provide for the millions of individuals who live with life-threatening illnesses and their families? If we don't move forward, we will not have the chance to develop innovative treatments, including the potential of growing kidneys. I hope I can give Naomi and other families like ours that chance.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I share your concern about the grave nature of the ongoing violence in the Middle East. It's good we are here talking about these very serious issues. I am pleased to see honest debate about the nature of this conflict and the need to stand with Israel. But what else should this Congress be doing? It is vital that we engage one another in these critical days. With American military assets already deployed to the region for the evacuation effort, and the risk of escalation high, we must work together to get this right. Passing this resolution, however, is only the first step. After expressing our will, Congress must insist that the White House take our resolution and use it to encourage the international community to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah and expose them for what they really are--terrorist groups openly operating within the borders of democratically elected regimes. The recent events in the Middle East have troubled us all. The campaign by Hamas and Hezbollah to kidnap Israeli soldiers and launch rocket attacks in Israel has the potential to destabilize the entire region and invite an expanded conflict. Israel's ongoing incursions into Lebanon should rightly be viewed as retaliations against Hezbollah--and not against the people of Lebanon. Like many of my colleagues, I have traveled to Lebanon and seen first hand the potential that country has. Like Israelis, the Lebanese want nothing more than to live in peace and prosperity. But as fast as a rocket flying across the Israel border, the dreams of the Lebanese have been put on hold. Once again, their population is held hostage by foreign interests. And once again, the threat to Israeli sovereignty has forced an armed response. I agree with Secretary Rice that Israel has a right and obligation to defend its people. That is exactly what Article 51 of the U.N. Charter guarantees to all sovereign nations. As justified as their response may be, Israel must continue to be mindful of the effects, both physical and psychological, that their actions have on civilians in the region. There is substantial evidence that Israel has taken several measures to minimize harm to the civilian population in Lebanon. This includes the dropping of warning pamphlets in advance of Israeli missions in civilian areas. It also includes the use of advanced weaponry that targets a military objective without harming civilians or civilian infrastructure. But we must be honest. When engaged in armed conflict it is difficult to ensure the safety of civilians. In fact, Hezbollah and Hamas purposefully operate in populated areas, often putting civilians between heavily armed terrorists and the Israeli military. The effects of this type of warfare is also painful to Israel. As Golda Meir so poignantly stated,'' When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.'' As dire as events on the ground appear, there is room for U.S. leadership. The question now is what form that leadership should take. The administration must swiftly do what it can to create conditions in the region that will open the doors to diplomacy. This Congress expects the President to work toward achieving this goal. Once more favorable conditions are created, it should be the administration's priority to dispatch our senior diplomatic leaders, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying I appreciate the sensitivity of my colleagues on this issue who believe this bill is about veterans. I, too, have a deep appreciation of our veterans and the sacrifices they have made for our Nation and our freedoms. If this bill were nothing more than a veterans issue, we would have a very simple decision before us today. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The courts have told us time and time again what this issue is about. It is about a demonstrated preference of one religion over all others. It is about a uniquely religious symbol on public land. Make no mistake about it, this bill is not about preserving a veterans memorial. It is about preserving a 29-foot cross that sits within the boundaries of a veterans memorial, a veterans memorial that is supposed to honor all veterans. Yet towering over the American flag, and the plaques, names, and photos of honored veterans, and I can see many of their faces in the plaques today, is a 29-foot symbol of one religion, and that is why we are here today. A district court ruling on the memorial noted, ``Even if one strains to view the cross in the context of a war memorial, its primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians are being honored.'' I can certainly understand, Mr. Speaker, the emotion that this issue has generated. Believe me, I can understand that emotion. But as today's discussion has proven, this issue has become more about a cross than about a veterans memorial. Our focus should be on the veterans, and it should be inclusive of all veterans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to share the words of one of my constituents who just recently wrote me. He says, ``My father, a Bronze Star recipient for being wounded twice during D-Day, died a few years back, and I would like to pay tribute to his service to our country by purchasing a plaque to honor him. ``Mt. Soledad is one mile from where I live, and it would be the most logical choice, given its beautiful location and proximity. ``However, my father, being a practicing Jew, would be dishonored by the cross.'' That was the way he felt he would see it. ``Shouldn't,'' he asked, ``a war memorial pay homage to all who served and defended this country?'' And he continues to write, ``It is un-American to create a memorial to veterans which is not all-inclusive. ``There are many things,'' he writes, ``which could be erected as a tribute, but a cross, a crescent moon, a statue of Buddha, or a Star of David, are completely inappropriate and illegal. ``This is all about religion, because if the monument being considered were a statue of a dove or a soldier, we would not even be having this conversation.'' Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue. Believe me, it would be easy to vote with the majority on this issue. But the easiest decision, or the most popular one, is not always the right one. In the words of James Fenimore Cooper, and I quote, ``It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.'' The beauty of our Constitution is that it protects the voice of the minority, so I ask you to join me in protecting that minority today.