Susan Davis

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. 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 5 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. I believe the time has come to make direct access to an ob-gyn a national standard. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. 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 the more than 4 million Californians enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into almost 51 million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. This means that one in four insured families are not protected by California's own second opinion law! I believe the time has come to make access to second opinions a national standard. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering how the Defense bill can best provide for the men and women serving overseas. The Davis-Harman- Sanchez amendment lifts the current restriction on reproductive care in overseas military hospitals and permits servicewomen to walk into a U.S. military hospital, a familiar and trusted place, to use their own private funds for safe and legal pregnancy termination services. Under current law, women have to return home for medical services after obtaining permission from their commanding officer and finding space on military transport. The other option for them is venturing out to a hospital in a foreign country if, in fact, they are able to do that. Servicewomen do not receive the protection of the Constitution they defend. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat that again. Servicewomen do not receive the protection of the Constitution they defend. We trust women in the military to secure our safety. We ask women to put their lives at risk for our freedoms. So why is it that we do not support them when they require safe and legal medical services? I want to clarify a few points about this amendment. No Federal funds would be used for these procedures. Military women would use their own funds. This amendment only affects overseas military hospitals and would not violate host country laws. It will, however, open up reproductive services at bases in countries where abortion is legal. And it does not compel any doctor, any doctor who opposes these procedures on principle, to perform one. I ask that all the Members support our servicewomen, support our servicewomen by supporting the Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as we consider this amendment and others today, I want to urge my colleagues to consider the following questions: What message do we give to the brave servicewoman whose life is on the line this very minute in Iraq? What message do we give the young woman who recently chose to join the military and defend this country? Distilled to its essence, this defense bill reaches to the heart of some very basic questions about America's policy towards servicewomen and how we choose to treat them. And the question is, will we treat them equally and with respect, or not? Military women deserve the right to make private medical decisions according to their own beliefs and to receive timely care from a doctor. They should not have to find themselves alone on a plane to the U.S. or alone in a foreign hospital. The Davis-Harman-Sanchez amendment is about safety, individual responsibility and fairness. I believe we owe our servicewomen this much.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think that several of our colleagues want to really put this issue aside, but I think it has had an impact. I spoke to Sergeant Cynthia Hanna this morning. Sergeant Hanna works for the San Diego Police Department and is a Marine Corps veteran. Like many women in Iraq right now, Sergeant Hanna was an integral part of the fight. But let me tell you where her fight is now. Her fight is on the streets of San Diego. I thought Sergeant Hanna summed up the issue best. Not once did she talk about whether this is a Democrat or Republican issue. She said, ``The desire to serve has never been about women's equality to the exclusion of readiness considerations. The struggle,'' the struggle, ``is about the privilege of serving one's country without artificial barriers based solely on gender. Women's struggle for a place in the military has been about seeking the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The struggle is about women being judged by the same standards as men in any job for which they can qualify. It has always been about being able to pursue a career based on individual qualifications rather than unrelated stereotypes.''

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire into the time we have available. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Putnam). The gentlewoman has 6 minutes remaining.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 366. I want to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his leadership in crafting a bill which could receive bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, education for careers is terribly important for young people. Members have worked hard to balance planning for academic courses and introductory training to create a seamless move from secondary to postsecondary education. In my district there are several community colleges which offer excellent training for nursing and the health support occupations, as do the universities. But the truth is that high school students need to have taken the math and science courses that will enable them to move into these post-secondary courses directly. They deserve to progress quickly to qualify for these needed and available jobs. But I have to reiterate the concern that I expressed in committee when I offered a sense of the Congress amendment to state that this Act must not only be reauthorized, but also funded. Unfortunately, that amendment failed on a party-line vote. I appreciate the sentiments that were expressed saying that well, of course appropriations would be made for the program. But Members, we have failed to do that. Last week we passed a budget which omits funding for this program as well as for programs like Trio and GearUp that also help high school students prepare for post- secondary education. So it is only wishful thinking, I am afraid, to suppose that this $1.3 billion program can be paid for as part of the President's proposed $1.2 billion high school initiative, along with many of the other 48 unfunded education programs. I believe that our young people deserve better.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 748. Let us just pause for a moment and think about what it does. Will it prevent unwanted pregnancies that teenagers today have, although in smaller numbers, at least in California where we have had good education? Let us get real about it. I think it glosses over the complexity of real people's lives and abandons young women at a critical time. Young women deserve better than H.R. 748's complicated grid of State laws and intimidating legal procedures. We cannot mandate healthy communication where it does not exist. Just the opposite, I think, can happen from this bill. But we can work together to prevent teen pregnancies through education, through counseling, through access to family planning services. Please let us focus on prevention rather than restrictions.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2005, 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 25 States that already provides this convenient alternative to voting. While I personally love the ritual of going to the polls to vote, I know that getting to the polls on Election Day is often difficult. And for some, it is 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. 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, potentially avoiding long lines at the polls. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that some of the bigger 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, be that 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 30 percent increase in the use of mail-in ballots. In my district of San Diego, 40 percent of voters opted to mail in their votes during the 2004 election. And 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. States providing universal access to mail-in ballots during the 2004 election saw a 6.7 percent increase in voter turnout. And again, this increase was uniform across all demographics, including political affiliation. There is also extremely low incidence of fraud with voting by mail when compared to other methods of voting. The State of Oregon, which runs its elections entirely by mail, has prosecuted only four cases of fraud over the last six elections. Mr. Speaker, as the former president of the League of Women Voters of San Diego, I care deeply about the integrity of our electoral system. Twenty-five 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 Maryland, 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 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise regrettably in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. While there are many good provisions in the act that make modest improvements in support of energy efficiency, there are major deficiencies in this bill. My constituents are very clear about the problems they face. First, gas prices are too high at the pump. Second, our country will always have to rely on foreign-produced oil. Third, the costs of electricity have been inflated by the manipulations of energy corporations which have not been required to refund their illegal profits. In addition, many are concerned about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. This measure does not strongly address these issues. The cost of gas is a function of supply and demand. This body had the opportunity to enact a wisely balanced policy to reduce the demand for oil in this country and to address the supply of fuel by investing aggressively in alternative energy sources. The President's own energy administration have said this bill will have only negligible impact on production, consumption and imports of oil. In fact, they said it will probably increase the price of gasoline by 3 cents per gallon. What this bill does is to authorize more money for existing energy producers to increase oil drilling in sensitive areas for sources of supply that will not greatly reduce future reliance on foreign oil. The President himself declared that with oil costing over $50 per barrel, the oil industry does not need further incentives to increase production. Price alone does that. Yet, this bill provides $8 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas industry. The President proposed $6.7 billion for tax breaks for energy with 72 percent invested in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. Instead, this bill reduces that investment to 6 percent. Even an existing program to provide tax credits for wind power will sunset this year and has not been renewed in this bill. Yet, high costs of electric energy must be reduced by use of renewable sources for power. A major way Congress could have acted to reduce petroleum demand would have been to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobile fleets. A major report by the National Commission on Energy Policy advocated enhancing oil security by reforming and significantly strengthening vehicle efficiency standards. Within a relatively short time, expanding the production of vehicles with existing technologies could have reduced fuel consumption of automobiles and U.S. oil demand. Yet, an amendment to increase fuel efficiency standards failed. The Commission also advocated providing $300 million per year in manufacturer and consumer incentives for production and purchase of efficient hybrid-electric and advanced diesel vehicles. This bill falls short of that goal, providing only $35 million for 2006 for grants to develop hybrid technology and no funding for incentives to manufacture or purchase them. Regrettably, the amendment to strike drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also failed. Drilling there would not address the near-term supply of oil and therefore gas prices and is not projected to have a major impact on reducing dependence on foreign oil. In fact, this country cannot be self-sufficient in oil. We must reduce our demand. Related to an issue of great concern to Californians, the bill protects producers of the additive MTBE from liability for their knowing sale of a product which seeps into local water supplies rendering them toxic. Initially, an amendment striking this was not allowed to be debated and voted. States like California could be stuck with paying the estimated $29 billion bill for cleaning up these sites of leaking storage tanks and polluted water supply. There are a host of other issues that affect my constituents on the coast of California. These relate to the ability to appeal decisions under the Coastal Zone Management Act and incentives for drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill removes the power of states to determine siting of liquefied natural gas facilities. There are also provisions which will reduce the incentive for states to clean their air, thus increasing global warming. In addition, the bill increases the power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the body which has failed to order appropriate refunds for California utility consumers based on the 2000-2001 manipulation of the power market. While I applaud a number of measures, like continuing the Energy Star program for appliances and providing grants of $50 million in 2006 to develop or promote photo voltaic technologies, these measures are modest compared to the overall need for investing in alternative energy sources and passing measures to decrease our dependence on petroleum.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill so that we can, and the public can, rely on the energy-conscious information that they are getting and that they know that is correct and accurate, and they can move forward with that. Mr. Chairman, Members, are your constituents also asking you what you are doing about high gas prices? We must answer that question in this bill. Individuals can do something about their gasoline consumption when they select a car to buy. We need to help them. People expect that, when they look at the window sticker, the miles per gallon figures that the EPA supplies are what they will get when they purchase the car. They are not. When one of my staff members complained to the car dealer that the gas mileage figures were way off for City Driving for the car she had selected for its fuel efficiency, the dealer said, ``Oh, that doesn't apply to driving in DC.'' I support this amendment because it would require the EPA to correct the long-standing inaccuracies in its testing procedures. Our constituents must be able to rely on these facts to be the energy-conscious consumers they want to be. Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan to Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I have long admired and respected his efforts since I was elected to Congress and began serving with him on the Committee on Armed Services. I want to take a moment now to specifically mention our military families. By now, every American should be familiar with the daily contributions and sacrifices made by our service members, but we have to remember that their families serve, too. Many spouses remind me all the time that when the military prepares for deployment, well, so do their families. As a former military spouse myself, I am incredibly grateful and humbled by their unique sacrifices. With so much of our attention on other things, their contributions often go unnoticed and underappreciated. I want our military families to know that we are working to improve the family-support infrastructure that exists for them. Access to family support services should be consistent without regard to where the families reside. Use of technology can certainly enhance their access to family support, but it sure cannot take the place of a support network. Democrats are seeking more innovative ways to fund child care for military families, to provide a fully resourced, comprehensive and portable health care benefit, and to increase the value of the commissary and exchange benefit. We have also made progress with addressing the demand for family housing. This has included privatization initiatives, military construction, and adequate funding for the basic allowance for housing. Democrats are also exploring ways in which we can work together with DOD to enhance educational and employment opportunities for military spouses. And I can tell the Members firsthand how difficult this is when faced with the challenges of the military life-style. By recognizing the contributions of our military families, we have identified a critical part of addressing future recruiting and retention needs of the military. We must continue to recognize their sacrifices as well as those made by the service members themselves. This is an important task, and I am hopeful that Congress will continue giving this the concerted attention it deserves as we prepare the Defense Authorization bill for next year.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill adds to the burden of military families finding basic financial strength.