Susan Davis

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute a great warship that was named for a great maritime city: my hometown of San Diego. The U.S.S. San Diego served our nation with honor and distinction during World War II. The San Diego was a light cruiser whose principal purpose was to provide antiaircraft protection to the fast carrier task groups that formed the backbone of the fleet during the war in the Pacific. Commissioned in January 1942, the San Diego joined the Pacific Fleet just prior to the Battle of Midway and saw her first action in the Guadalcanal campaign in the summer of 1942. The San Diego participated altogether in 42 months of nearly continuous operations, was involved in 34 engagements with enemy forces, earned 18 Battle Stars for her World War II campaigns, and was selected by Admiral Halsey to be the first major U.S. warship to enter Tokyo Bay upon the surrender of Japan. Though the San Diego has been decommissioned and scrapped for many years, she has not been forgotten. The U.S.S. San Diego Memorial Association is a nonprofit organization formed with the goal of erecting a permanent memorial in San Diego, its namesake city, to honor the valiant and remarkable services of the cruiser U.S.S. San Diego and the men who served aboard her during the tumultuous and historical years of 1941-1945. Association membership includes surviving Navy veterans who served on the San Diego during the war. The Port of San Diego has donated a prime waterfront site for the U.S.S. San Diego Memorial, and the Memorial Association is raising private funds to construct a beautiful monument. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the U.S.S. San Diego Memorial Association and the Port of San Diego for their tremendous efforts to pay tribute to this great ship and her crew. Once again, the people of San Diego are demonstrating their strong support for the United States Navy and its many contributions to our nation's defense.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the veterans of San Diego County, I want to thank all of the people that worked on this issue so hard over these years. Mr. Speaker, during a Memorial Day breakfast last year, the President remarked, ``America's veterans have earned not only honors, but specific benefits, and those only become more necessary with the years. My administration will do all it can to assist our veterans and to correct oversights of the past.'' I believe that those were sincere words, and we must work together to turn them into reality. Over 400 Members have pledged their support to legislation to right an injustice and provide veterans with their well- deserved benefits. I hope both the Congress and the administration will accept the final version of the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, with a deep appreciation for the gravity of our collective decision, I rise to oppose this resolution, not because I disagree with the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein, with force if necessary, but because I believe that this resolution is dangerously broad and counterproductive to America's greater goal of winning the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the history of our country and the Congress, relatively few issues have risen to the significance of a declaration of war. Like many of my colleagues, I have personally anguished over this decision because I am convinced that Saddam Hussein is a threat. It is clear that he has designs to amass weapons of mass destruction with the intent to exert control over the Middle East, if not a larger region. The core of our decision lies in the best way to address this threat. I have tried to understand all perspectives. I have attended classified and public hearings, examined evidence, studied pages of material, and sought the counsel of many. I have listened intently to those who have fought wars and those who have prevented them. I have also listened attentively to the citizens of San Diego. Mr. Speaker, looking back on the lessons of history, it is clear no one can predict the future. Those faced with difficult decisions must make the best judgment based on the information at hand. To be sure, in the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, ``We do not know what we do not know.'' However, that is precisely the reason that I continue to have reservations about unilateral force. Unilateral preemptive force may indeed win the battle for Iraq but cause us to lose the war by isolating America from its many allies, turning nations against us and reinforcing the cause of those who wish us harm. In addition to these considerations, we must consider our young men and women in uniform. Before sending them into harm's way, we must fully explore every other avenue to achieve our goals without risking their lives. I do not believe we have done that. I applaud the efforts of many to bring Congress to a place where there is more agreement than disagreement. While we may disagree on the manner, we agree that something must be done, and we agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace, and we agree that the United States must exercise its leadership. To be a true leader, we must convince others to follow. Hubert Humphrey once said, ``Leadership in today's world requires far more than a large stock of gunboats and a hard fist at the conference table.'' That is precisely why we must continue to seek options to unilateral force, to work with the United Nations and the world community, and to use force only when all other options are exhausted. If we do not, how can we expect others to do likewise? In addition, we must be clear in our goal. Again, citing the Secretary of Defense, our goal is disarmament. To achieve this, we must insist on tough new rigorous U.N. inspections. If those inspections are thwarted, we may use force, first, if sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, and then alone if necessary. Based on these principles, I will support the Spratt substitute because it embodies the best way to address the threat posed by Saddam. It holds the U.N. accountable, and it retains Congress' prerogative to truly be the voice of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I question the notion that we must speak with one voice because it is the collection of voices that grants us our strength. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will vote ``no'' because House Joint Resolution 114 is a premature de facto declaration of war that fails to recognize the fundamental tenet that leadership involves leading, not merely acting alone. But make no mistake. A ``no'' vote on the resolution does not restrict the President's power to act should an imminent threat arise. He already has that authority. To conclude, let me say to the servicemen and women, especially those living in San Diego who will be called upon to enforce this policy, my admiration and respect for you is as strong as ever and it will never waiver. Just as you always do your duty to America regardless of how you personally feel about a particular mission, so will I do my duty to give you the support you need to complete your mission and get home safely. Along with my fellow Members of the House Committee on Armed Services, I will fight vigorously to get you every tool you need to do the job right. To my colleagues on the committee and in Congress, I hope you will take my opposition to this resolution in the spirit in which it is offered, that of doing what I feel must be done to fight and win the war on terrorism and empower diplomacy. We may disagree over the strategy of addressing the threats posed by Iraq at this time, but we are united in the greater goal to free America and the world from the threat of terrorism. To our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, a warning: do not confuse democracy and debate with disunity or disarray. Our voices constitute our strength, and the United States of America is united in its resolve.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, with real sorrow I come to the podium today to honor a truly memorable colleague, the Honorable Patsy Mink. As a freshman Member, it has been so inspiring to serve on a committee with a role model who has made a real mark on our society through her lengthy service in the House of Representatives. It was an honor for me to join her at this podium on June 19 in the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of Title IX. Seldom does one get to join forces with one of the original sponsors of legislation that was not only landmark legislation for our country, but was so formative for my children's generation. When I was a local school board member, I remember how hard we had to work to change the culture of our society to implement the equality embodied in this bill. She lived the battle for equal opportunity that that bill codified. I was so touched that she thanked those of us who spoke honoring this legislation by presenting us with the T-shirt that I wear very, very proudly today. The comment has already been made: We know how giving Patsy was, because whenever we did something that she liked, she showered us with macadamia nuts so we would have a taste of Hawaii. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), for bringing us all together this evening. No one will easily fill the chair of Patsy Mink, but we were all privileged to call ourselves her colleague, and we will rekindle the commitment she made to the issues which empowered her life: working for children, their education, their homes, and their health care. I thank her for showing us the way.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution recognizing the contributions of my constituent from San Diego, Paul Espinosa, to both the Latino and the arts community. A few years ago, a study conducted by a leading Latino nonprofit concluded that representation of Hispanics in mainstream network television decreased during the last 30 years. The few roles that were held by Latinos often depicted them as criminals, maids or gardeners. Paul Espinosa observed this disturbing trend 20 years ago and dedicated himself to making documentaries and films about Hispanic Americans. He applied his academic background in anthropology to media and developed textured depictions of Hispanics. The results have made Paul Espinosa one of the country's most respected and recognized documentary film- makers. His works, to name a few, include the Lemon Grove Incident, the Hunt for Pancho Villa, and the Earth did not swallow him, Uneasy Neighbors, and The Border. The characters and experiences in his films are as diverse as the Latino community itself. He chronicled the story of a controversial 19th century New Mexico priest, the defining summer in a young migrant boy's life, and the actions of parents in Lemon Grove, California fighting for their children's education. Through these films, Paul Espinosa shows that Latinos possess a complex and dignified history. These previously untold stories examine the social issues surrounding the protagonists and provide a history lesson for all their viewers. Many consider Paul Espinosa's films catalysts for important cultural dialogue. These films are so highly regarded that they have become the basis for film festivals bearing his name in Texas and California. Academia has also recognized Paul Espinosa's films for their contributions to education. Various high schools and universities include some of his films in their curriculum. Paul Espinosa, who holds a B.A. from Brown University and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, was named a Regents Lecturer at the University of California San Diego in 2000 and is frequently asked to lecture at numerous universities on his films. Besides his work as a filmmaker, Paul Espinosa is a media arts activist. He is strongly dedicated to enabling an upcoming generation of filmmakers. His involvement with the Media Arts Center of San Diego and the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers speaks to his commitment to support aspiring media artists and increase the visibility of traditionally underrepresented groups. One of the Media Art Center's most promising initiatives is the Teen Producer's Project. It teaches young people artistic and analytical skills by emphasizing effective communication through the use of digital video, interpersonal skills and creative writing. Paul Espinosa has defined his career by making films that tell a meaningful story. His films have spurred discussion and challenged its viewers to reexamine their perceptions of Hispanic Americans. I hope you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues will join me in honoring this community artist, his accomplishments in the media arts and his triumphs for the Latino community.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 183. This resolution applauds the work of the U.S. Congressional Philharmonic Society and its promotion of musical excellence, patriotism, freedom, and democracy. The U.S. Congressional Philharmonic Society is actually made up of two groups, the United States Congressional Choral Society, which has performed at St. Joseph's Church on Capitol Hill and the Washington National cathedral, and the United States Congressional Philharmonic Orchestra, which has performed before foreign heads of state. Both of these organizations provide a valuable benefit to the people of Washington, D.C. and around the Nation in extolling the virtue of democracy and patriotism through music and song. Song and music have played an important role in many of our Nation's most historic moments, and the Society continues this tradition through its work. The House does a great service today by recognizing this organization. I urge Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to be here today to speak on behalf of this sense of Congress, which looks at the United States Philharmonic Society and applauds them, and tells them that we are very proud of the great work that they are doing. I am delighted to be here to join with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Second Opinion Coverage Act of 2002--legislation that will ensure the accessibility and coverage of medical second opinions. The Supreme Court's ruling this past June rekindled the debate surrounding managed care coverage. Patient protections and the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights again became topics of everyday conversation. Yet, Congress still has much work to do on crafting a strong Patients' Bill of Rights that can address patient needs. In my opinion, the first step to enacting any sort of comprehensive health care reform is to provide patients with access to appropriate medical information. This is why I am introducing the Second Opinion Coverage Act. As a member of the California State Assembly, I heard from a number of patients who saw a gap in their existing health care coverage. They wanted a clear process for medical second opinions. In particular, patients with challenging health conditions encountered difficulty obtaining a second opinion through their health plans. These patients faced complex procedures and wanted to be sure they were well educated about their treatment opinions. Anyone who has ever experienced the prospect of surgery knows the value of receiving a second opinion. The peace of mind provided by a second professional's opinion, in addition to the value of new information received, is immeasurable. Indeed, second opinions can result in better patient care because of the increased dialogue about treatment options, and can also benefit health plans by potentially reducing the number of invasive procedures. After meeting with patients, physicians and health groups, I authored a law in California that guarantees coverage of second opinions. If patients meet any one of five qualifying conditions, they 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. While I can describe the benefits of this measure, I believe that individual experiences best demonstrate the value of enacting second opinion legislation. John Torres, one of my constituents, shared with me his family's experience with medical second opinions. In 2000, a surgical procedure was recommended for Mr. Torres's young son, Nicholas. A consultation from another physician confirmed that a less- invasive procedure would effectively treat Nicholas's condition. The second opinion provided the Torres family with crucial information that helped them make the right decision for Nicholas. I am happy to say that Nicholas responded well to the treatment and is now an active seven-year old. The law in California provides a good first step by offering a straightforward process for addressing second opinion requests for many in my state. Unfortunately, this legislation does not cover 4.3 million Californians enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into 56 million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. All patients should have access to a full discussion and disclosure of their medical options. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation quickly into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in praise of Marla Ann Bennett, the young San Diegan who was killed in the July 31 terrorist bombing attack at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Marla was an extraordinary woman who touched the lives of many people in her all-too-brief lifetime. Her brutal murder left a terrible void in those lives and brought forth an outpouring of grief from the Jewish community where she lived: in Berkeley, where she attended the University of California; in Jerusalem, where she continued her studies and found a spiritual home as an American Jew in the Jewish homeland; and in San Diego, where she grew up and planned to return once her studies were completed. At Marla's memorial service, which was attended by over 2000 people, and in more intimate meetings with her family and her friends, I have shared the community's terrible grief at Marla's death, but also the great joy that she felt in life and shared with others. It is that joy and in the words of Rabbi Martin Lawson, ``Marla's legacy of caring, of Jewish learning and teaching, of smiles and optimism, of warmth and hope,'' that I want to share with my colleagues and the American people. As a young girl, Marla was precocious, mature beyond her years. At age 2, she told her parents no more babies in this house anymore, and at age 3, she announced that she was going to Stamford University. By her early teens she had explored her Jewish identity and found fulfillment in Judaism's spiritual teachings and in its call to save the world through acts of kindness and generosity. As a camp counselor, school class officer and volunteer Jewish educator, Marla was known for her infectious enthusiasm, good nature and appetite for hard work. She carried those qualities with her when she moved to Jerusalem to attend the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies at Hebrew University. In addition to her graduate work in Jewish history and culture, Marla worked to promote peace and understanding between Jewish and Arab Israelis. She felt that Israel had to do more to end the conflicts with its neighbors, and she grew impatient whenever a friend or family member seemed to give up on the peace process. Marla knew that living in Israel was risky but for her it was exhilarating. In an article for the San Diego Jewish Press Heritage, she wrote ``I am not a tourist; I deal with Israel and all its complexities, confusion, joy and pain every single day. And I love it. Life here is magical.'' In another article she wrote, ``I have a front row seat for the history of the Jewish people. I am part of the struggle for Israel's survival.'' Now Marla is a casualty in that struggle, but she is also a beacon of light for all those who dream of peace and work for the day when Israel can dwell in peace with her neighbors. Marla Bennett was one of thousands of young American Jews who have gone to Israel and stayed on despite the horrors of war and terrorism. In an open letter to Marla's parents, another young American who chose this path wrote that ``there was no question as to whether it was worth the risk.'' He told the Bennetts, ``My heart literally breaks for your loss but not for your daughter. She lived her life as a free, independent and bold Jewish woman. May her example live on in the sons and daughters that follow her.'' Amen. Marla Bennett was a beautiful, brilliant, brave, kind and caring young woman who lived life to the fullest, and though her death is a terrible blow to many of us, her life is an inspiration to us all.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the area we are talking about is one that we believe now with our new technologies and with some greater priorities that are set as well with the community, that we can provide the protection that we need, that we can provide the protection for the agents, but we can also do what is best for this last 2 miles, especially in an area that has a lot of binational crossings.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my San Diego colleague. I know how hard he has worked for years on national security supporting our military and is in line to take the reins as the chair of the Committee on Armed Services. We traveled recently together to Afghanistan and visited with our troops fighting the war on terrorism. It is with this great respect for my colleague who has the best of intentions that I rise in opposition to his amendment because the San Diego border fence project creates a false sense of security, endangers border patrol agents and diverts needed resources. The project's goal is to create a 14-mile long layer of three separate fences intended to prevent anyone from crossing the border from Mexico into the United States. Securing our borders, as you all know, has long been a challenge, particularly because doing so must be balanced among our chief goal of protecting security and yet enabling legitimate cross-border travel, promoting commerce and protecting civil liberties. Clearly, we need a sustainable border infrastructure plan that can accommodate the projected growth in legal border crossings. However, instead of viewing the border landscape as one filled with obstacles that cripple us, we should use this as an opportunity to bring about long-needed change. Border security is critically important to protect the country from terrorists and to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants. However, the border fence represents a false sense of security. Those who wish to bypass the fence can transit either through a long gap in the fence or in the water beyond the fence's end. Further, completion of the triple fence requires expending huge sums of money while destroying the landfill areas and negating the millions of dollars already expended in the area to preserve the estuary that exists there. Finally, I have heard from several border patrol agents, agents who spend very lonely hours patrolling the border, who are concerned that the construction of the fence could trap them and leave them without an escape route should they come under attack. If we are serious about border security, we should enhance the quality of the existing fence and not create a lane between fences that endangers the lives of both U.S. agents and would-be border crossers. Technology to improve border security exists in San Diego and around the Nation and is available off-the-shelf. Rather than relying on a Maginot Line along the border, we should rely upon our expertise and employ sophisticated technology to buttress protection through improved monitoring, surveillance and dispatch. As well as its obvious security benefits, this use of technology will ease personnel requirements. In addition, a technology-based infrastructure system clearly meets the stated goals of the INS in creating a permanent deterrence through certainty of detection and apprehension and to reduce the current enforcement footprint. The term infrastructure does not immediately equate to fence and the mere construction of a fence does not meet the ``certainty of detection'' criterion. Transforming our technology along the border has further benefits. At present, the dedicated men and women who work at the ports of entry are becoming increasingly taxed by the new requirements for tighter security. It is time to provide them with the tools and the technology they need and to send them a clear message that we value the work that they do. In addition, I believe that we can integrate existing technologies to increase interagency cooperation and data flow, thereby eliminating overlap and waste and streamlining processes, all while being mindful of civil rights. Moreover, leveraging technology will also serve to increase binational cooperation. Rather than constructing an old fashioned triple layered wall along the border, a wall that creates a false sense of security, endangers border patrol agents and diverts our needed resources, we should shelve old methods and embrace the new methods that this Department of Homeland Security will undoubtedly employ. I urge my colleagues to allow this new department the flexibility to develop its own priorities without burdening them with antiquated projects and defeat this amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps- Rahall-Miller amendment as a matter of equity for California in its long effort to protect its coastline from the potential effects of offshore oil production. Many of us remember the devastation to the Santa Barbara coastline because of an oil spill. The state of California has been actively fighting these leases since then, including a 1994 law permanently banning new offshore oil leasing in state waters. Like Florida, the coastal resources of California are critical to the strong economy of the state as well as to the aesthetic appreciation of its citizens and people around our Nation. I have been proud to join the authors in a series of efforts to insist that California be protected from potential environmental effects of new oil and gas offshore drilling. It is important to protect our coastline by preventing the administration from expending funds to allow new drilling activity.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of restoring funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. While the proposed increases still will not return the support we knew in 1995, it is so important to the children of our country that we make this progress. I want to cite what many of my colleagues have talked about today. Many people think of the NEA and the NEH grants as large grants to communities, but, actually, what we have are a number of grants that go to small organizations. I think even the fact that they are out there really inspires many, many organizations to put forth initiatives that they otherwise would never have put together, would never have explored. In San Diego, we have many, many connections and many, many links. The National Endowment for the Arts supports major organizations in my area, like the San Diego Opera Association in its symphony outreach to students and the Old Globe Theater in their Teatro Meta program. We also have a Challenge America grant, which enabled the San Diego Youth & Community Services to artist-led activities that link students in the Teen Connection program with actors from the La Jolla Playhouse and the Diversionary Theater. Another grant enabled a partnership with the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty for the Teen Producers Project, and that provides after-school media arts education to young people living in public housing. There are many, many of these grants, and all children deserve this opportunity to explore new arts interests and develop their talent, the kind of opportunities that the NEA and the NEH grants offer to enrich their lives. My colleagues, if looking into the eyes of children who become inspired by the arts is not sufficient, I would point out, as my colleagues have, that the multiplier effect on the economy of every dollar spent on the arts also enriches all of our communities.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a bill today that will support the learning opportunities of our most vulnerable children by supporting their literacy training from their very earliest days until they are in school. These are children of families who qualify for Even Start because they are low socioeconomic families who may also be English learners. Without the existing William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program, these children would arrive for their first day of school without the literacy skills to compete at that starting line. Even those who were able to get a scarce place in the Head Start program, would find that, hard as they worked through their school years, they were unlikely ever to catch up. The population served by Even Start generally has low levels of education, with 86 percent of parents not having completed high school upon entering the program (compared to about 27 percent of Head Start parents). Eighty percent of participants have a family income below $15,000 and over 40 percent have income below $6,000. This is a high need population. What the program offers is both literacy-training classes for the children and also family literacy programs for the parents. Children participating in Even Start are provided with age-appropriate educational services to ensure that they will achieve at a level similar to that of their peers. Liaison advisors work with each family to promote strong literacy support experiences, to help parents learn ways they can develop their own English literacy skills, and to provide support groups for parents to share the challenges and skills of parenting. Adults in these family literacy programs tend to participate longer than those in regular adult education programs because of the benefits family literacy programs provide to their children. They see benefits such as improved literacy skills, reduced dependency on federal/state assistance programs, and enhanced employment opportunities. Most importantly, they are empowered to be their child's first and most important teacher. Nationally, Even Start funds approximately 1,400 programs and serves approximately 50,000 families. This bill will set aside funding to establish nationwide programs to assist in the training of program directors and facilitators in research-based literacy training skills. Because of new legislation, particularly the new qualifications for personnel, the performance objectives, and the new ``scientifically-based reading research'' requirement for instructional programs, local Even Start programs need this type of assistance. Additionally, I have requested an evaluation to provide a longitudinal look at the achievement of children who have been assisted by the program. When I have visited Even Start classes for children and for their parents, it is overwhelming to hear their expressions of appreciation for the program and its leaders. Adults expressed amazement at the change in their children's feeling about reading and learning when they made reading together a regular part of their day. One mother told me how she thought she couldn't help her five year old with reading, but, thanks to the program, she realized that it was good for them to read together and help each other with the words each didn't know. President Bush has declared that an additional step in his efforts to reform education will be to prod parents, day-care centers and preschools to teach more skills to children before they get to kindergarten. Even Start provides just such a program for parents to develop the literacy skills enabling them to perform this task. All children deserve an even start. This bill will assure that they have well-trained facilitators to give their families the skills to compete fairly at the starting line.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I express my opposition to this unacceptable bill that is particularly harmful to senior women in my district. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act and its implications for our seniors. In particular, I would like to discuss how women fare under this proposal before us. Women are literally the face of Medicare. They comprise 58 percent of the Medicare population at age 65 and represent 71 percent of beneficiaries at age 85. Any potential prescription drug plan must be evaluated with regard to its impact on women--if it works for women, it works for everyone. When Medicare was established in the 1960s, the biggest need was insurance coverage for hospital stays and doctor visits, not prescription drugs. The focus then was on providing relief for acute conditions, not chronic. Today more than 88 percent of Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries use prescription drugs. The average senior takes four prescriptions daily and fills an average of 18 prescriptions a year. The use of prescription drugs is more pronounced among women. Beginning at midlife, women have a higher incidence of chronic illness than men. The average woman age 65 and over lives nearly seven years longer than the average man and relies on Medicare for her health insurance coverage for more years. While most women on Medicare use prescription drugs regularly, over \1/4\ of these beneficiaries--nearly six million women--lack any prescription drug coverage. Out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs place a disproportionate burden on older women who have retirement incomes that are roughly half than those of men. In 2000, the average income for women over 65 was $15,638, compared to $29,329 for men. Even though women have significantly smaller incomes than men, they spend a larger proportion of their income on out-of-pocket health costs. Women over 65 spend 20 percent in comparison to the 17 percent spent by men. These expenses increase to 27 percent for women 85 and older. Older women are one of our nation's most vulnerable groups and providing affordable prescription drug coverage is critical to improving their quality of life. Unfortunately, the proposal before us today does not achieve this objective. This legislation does not guarantee any specific benefit. Instead, the bill provides subsidies to insurance companies to provide private insurance to seniors. The coverage and $33 premium mentioned today would only be available to beneficiaries who can find a private plan that offers it. All these figures depend on what HMOs and private drug insurance plans want to charge. H.R. 4954 provides less than one-quarter of the amount seniors are estimated to pay for prescription drugs over 10 years. In fact, it leaves seniors wholly responsible for costs between $2000 and $3700. Nearly half of all seniors' annual drug costs are above $2000. I cannot support a plan that subjects seniors to a gap in coverage. These seniors will not receive any help with their drug bills for at least part of the year, even though they continue to pay premiums. I am committed to passing a fair prescription drug plan under Medicare that does not stifle innovation or eliminate choice in coverage. Seniors need assistance in order to obtain prescription drugs to treat or prevent illness. In addition, I am disappointed that today's activities will not include a discussion of an alternative bill. As our senior population continues to grow, we must take a comprehensive look at all of our options in order to provide seniors with real benefits. Instead of H.R. 4954, I support a meaningful prescription drug benefit that does not handicap our seniors at a time when they most need assistance. The plan I support builds on the existing Medicare system and provides seniors with guaranteed benefits, premiums, and cost sharing for all beneficiaries. Not estimates. The federal government would use the collective bargaining clout of all Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate fair drug prices and these savings would be passed on to our seniors. American seniors want, need, and deserve real prescription drug coverage. The Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act establishes a complex program that offers modest benefits at most.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is true when I was out on the campaign trail we talked a lot about health care. That is why it was so interesting to me a few months ago when I was in Costco on the weekend with my husband doing some shopping and I noticed that people were following me around the store. I started getting a little nervous and finally stopped long enough for them to approach me. Basically what they said is that they know that Congress has got to focus on the war on terrorism, that that is our priority, and I support the President in his efforts. Then they said, we understand that, but when is Congress going to get back to talking about health care? They proceeded to tell me about the difficulty that they are having with their mother and her prescription drug costs. I know that Members get e-mails and letters daily. I have one here. ``Dear Congresswoman Davis: I have only one request. That is to help us, families with members who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. Medicare does not cover my mother's prescriptions, which is very costly, around $140 for 30 tablets that she must take. Taking care of her is really hard. Where are we going to end with medication and treatment for this disease? We need your help soon.'' And another letter, ``As retired people and getting up in years, my wife and I are spending an increasing share of our income on medicine. I hope you can find a way to help us with that problem.'' Well, we are talking about that now, and that is a good thing. The reason we are here tonight is to talk about the impact that this has particularly on women. It is all about our priorities, what is important to us and what do we choose to fund. We know that in America today over a quarter of women on Medicare, nearly 6 million women, lack any prescription drug coverage at all. The average woman, age 65 and older, lives nearly 7 years longer than the average man, and she is typically widowed, living alone and struggling to make ends meet on an annual income of $15,615, compared to over $29,171 for men. It is nearly half of that for men. So that is why we come before the House today to talk about how this impacts women. We know that two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes below the poverty level are women and that a woman spends 20 percent of her income each year on out-of-pocket health care costs. I am committed, as I know Members here today are committed, to a fair prescription drug plan under Medicare that does not stifle innovation or eliminate choice in coverage. I want to help seniors afford the increasingly expensive prescription drugs that they need to treat or prevent illness. We know what is going to be before us does not have the access, has geographic inequalities that do not work, and has premium concerns that will not work for our seniors. We need to develop the best comprehensive plan. We need to develop a prescription drug plan that provides our seniors with real benefits. An alternative does exist, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to bring that to the House floor for discussion. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing these issues before us today.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be part of this presentation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 95, which would designate an official flag of the Medal of Honor and provide for its presentation to each recipient of the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is our Nation's highest military award for valor that can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The existence of the Medal of Honor began back in 1861 when Iowa Senator James W. Grimes introduced a bill that authorized the production and distribution of medals of honor to be bestowed upon petty officers, seamen, landsmen and Marines as shall distinguish themselves by their gallantry in action. President Abraham Lincoln signed the bill and the Navy Medal of Honor was born. The next year, 1862, a similar bill for an Army Medal of Honor was introduced and signed into law. The Air Force did not receive its own version of the Medal of Honor until 1965. Until then, Air Force recipients were awarded the Army Medal of Honor. It was not until 1963 that Congress established guidelines for awarding the Medal of Honor. The medal can only be awarded for action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly forces in an armed conflict in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The first Medal of Honor was presented to Private Jacob Parrott, one of six men who were awarded the medal for their action in the great locomotive chase in April 1862. Since then, there have been 3,458 Medals of Honor awarded for 3,453 separate acts of heroism performed by 3,439 individuals. Nineteen service members have received the Medal of Honor twice. Mr. Speaker, as thousands of our men and women in uniform continue their efforts in the war against terrorism, it is only fitting that we recognize those who have performed acts of bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond the call to duty. An official flag to be presented to our Nation's Medal of Honor recipients is only fitting. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 416 introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock). The resolution congratulates the Navy League of the United States for 100 years of service to this Nation. Established in 1902, the Navy League and its more than 77,000 active members have been dedicated to educating Americans about the importance of maintaining a strong maritime force and providing support to sea service members and their families. While the Navy League is a civilian organization, it works closely with the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and U.S. Merchant Marines through over 330 councils in the United States and around the world. In addition, these services allow the United States to maintain our presence around the world, ensure the freedom of our seas, and promote America's national security interests and global stability. The Navy League also reaches out to our children through the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps and the Navy League Scholarship Program. The U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps has over 8,500 cadets, ages 11 through 17, that learn seamanship skills, maritime history, customs and traditions. Cadets also learn to build their courage, self-reliance, and confidence, and are offered opportunities to travel and train with Sea Cadets from foreign countries, such as Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands. The Navy League has provided over $25,000 in scholarships and awards. The League also provides support for Navy and Marine Corps Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps and Reserve Officer Training Corps units across the United States. The Navy League councils also support military personnel and their families through ``adoption'' of ships, installations, and units, commissioning ceremonies, awards and other recognition programs. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 416, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and join in extending heartfelt congratulations to the Navy League and its members on their century of dedication and commitment to our Nation's maritime forces.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and respect for our men and women in uniform that I introduce legislation to ensure elimination of the pay gap that exists for our military personnel. Since 1982, when military pay was last considered to have achieved ``reasonable comparability'' with the private sector, military raises have lagged behind those enjoyed by the average American. Legislation passed for FY2000 included a large pay raise and mandated pay raises of ``inflation plus one half of one percent'' through 2006. Despite a series of generous raises, the pay gap will not be eliminated by 2006. My legislation would do two things. Extend the mandate from 2006 to 2013, when the gap would be eliminated, and then ensure that raises keep pace with inflation. As our military personnel consider the very personal decision to stay in the military or move to the private sector they do factor in future pay raises. From my own personal experience visiting with our service men and women I know that they don't choose to serve for financial gain. They serve because they believe in America and the freedoms that we all enjoy and are committed to service. Like all of us here in this House, they understand that a lifestyle of service entails a certain amount of sacrifice. In exchange for all their sacrifices, they have a simple request: that their nation make a commitment to them that parallels their commitment to the nation. Today I ask my colleagues to join in that commitment and support my legislation to permanently eliminate the military pay cap.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, Friday morning, many Americans will be getting up early to root for the U.S. Men's Soccer Team, which quite unexpectedly has reached the final eight in the World Cup soccer competition. This is the best men's effort in more than 70 years. But who can forget the thrilling matches and win of the U.S. Women's Soccer Team in the 2000 World Cup? We all have visions of the celebratory leaps of joy and the news magazine cover pictures that followed. While the women's success preceded the men's current victories, who can question that this prominence would never have happened in a women's sport had it not been for the passage of title IX, the tradition-breaking measure that said women deserve an equal opportunity to excel according to their talents, not their opportunity? I am honored to speak in celebration of this 30th anniversary of title IX to the education amendments of 1972 at this podium following the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who has been a champion of the implementation of title IX for many years, monitoring, nurturing, and nudging its realization. Sports have grabbed the headlines as the comparison of women's opportunity with men's. Indeed, for women who graduated from college before 1972, we know full well how little girls were encouraged to succeed at male endeavors, not only in sports but in math and science, politics and economics, medicine and the law. We can see the impact, not only of increased opportunity because of this legislation, but also of the example of those pioneering women in space, in the Supreme Court, increasingly as CEOs of major companies, and yes, as Members of Congress who serve as role models for the expectations of young women today. But we cannot be proud. Career education received a grade of D on the report card on gender equity reported by the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. We must multiply our efforts to assure that girls have the same educational opportunities, and thus career opportunities, as boys. As Members of Congress, we must reach out to young women's groups, and to those women who have tested the campaign waters to run for school boards, for city councils and county boards of supervisors; and we must mentor and encourage them to aspire to all seats in government. In the California Assembly, I experienced the great difference it made to agendas, to leadership positions, and the style of politics when women became 25 percent of our body. I can only imagine what it would feel like here in the House of Representatives if there were 109 women out of 435, instead of 59. How important it would be to the national agenda if the Senate had moved not from nine and counting to 13 in the last election, but to 25. What if women were represented by their proportion of the population? What if there were more women Governors, and yes, candidates for President and Vice President? Title IX has changed our culture in many ways in these 30 years. The women of America must move forward together to assure even greater results in the next 30.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Niki de Saint Phalle, a vibrant lady and an artist whose sculpture has made many areas of San Diego as well as the world more lively and imaginative. In 1983, her sculpture ``Sun God'', a bird soaring from 29 feet above the ground, inaugurated the sculpture garden on the campus of the University of California San Diego. In 1998, children and adults flocked to Balboa Park to enjoy her creative menagerie of larger than life creatures--elephants, camels, and spiders all composed of brightly colored mosaics and stones. Although most of them were eventually transferred to their intended home, a ``Noah's Ark'' art park in Jerusalem, some have remained to grace our park. Last October, the city unveiled a work by Niki de Saint Phalle, which was commissioned by the San Diego Unified Port District. The work titled ``Coming Together'' is a 37-foot-tall metal, ceramic and glass sculpture created in brilliant colors, which resembles two faces joined cheek to cheek. I had the wonderful opportunity to talk with Niki several times both in her studio and as we toured a park in Mid-City for which I had hoped we would be able to commission her work. In the process, we visited a neighboring school where the children recalled seeing her animal sculptures in Balboa Park and responded eagerly with questions. She took great pleasure in having reached this enthusiastic young audience. While Ms. de Saint Phalle was born in France of French and American parents, we are fortunate that a career that spanned international sites for her major works--a kinetic fountain in Paris, the Tarot Garden sculpture park in Tuscany, and The Sprengel Museum in Hanover, Germany--ultimately brought her to make her home in La Jolla and to make her later works available to our community. As a self-taught artist, Niki de Saint Phalle is a wonderful role model for those who have a spirit, a dream, and the inspiration to express themselves innovatively. She celebrated women's freedom and power in her monumental works. Her generosity and spirit graced San Diego, and she will be missed.

Ms. DAVIS of California

Ms. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an opportunity to secure our borders and support commerce. Securing our borders has long been a challenge. Doing so must balance appropriate enforcement without hindering legitimate crossborder travel or commerce, and still protect civil liberties. However, the events of September 11, coupled with daily traffic between the U.S.-Mexico border, have severely overextended our border inspection resources. My district does not contain ports of entry, but its proximity to the border has affected it. I hear stories from my constituents about waiting in line for hours in the morning to commute to work. Long inspection lines are commonplace, with delays lasting several hours. This border congestion has negatively impacted San Diego area businesses. In response, I have been working with various organizations in the district to develop a strategy to provide relief for San Diego. I have heard from many about SENTRI, a dedicated commuter lane demonstration project at the border that integrates technology with law enforcement. SENTRI addresses the issues of congestion and long border delays by quickly moving low risk travelers lhrough the inspection process. Frequent travelers participate in the SENTRI program by undergoing an extensive background check and interview to verify their low risk status. Once approved, the participants and their registered vehicles enter the country through a traffic lane exclusively reserved for them. Transponders in the car retrieve the vehicle and occupant information from the SENTRI database and display it on a screen within the inspection booth for fast identification. A border agent then compares the car's occupants to the pictures on the screen, allowing them to quickly continue on their way. Demand for SENTRI passes has significantly increased since September 11. However, prospective participants encounter a tremendous application backlog. Applicants face up to a six-month waiting time to receive an appointment with the enrollment center and another three months for approval notification. As a result, I am introducing the Strengthening a Fast Entry at the Border Act or the SAFE Border Act of 2002. The SAFE Border Act will increase security by pre-screening more people and by allowing agents to focus their enforcement efforts on those who have not passed extensive background checks. Specifically, my legislation does three things: it gives the attorney general the authority to fully implement and make programs like SENTRI pen-nanent. Dedicated commuter lanes and PortPASS programs have clearly shown their effectiveness in maintaining security and expediting travel. I believe the nation can only benefit from further expansion of these programs. The second part allows INS and Customs personnel to devote more resources to prospective applicants by extending the permit renewal period to two years. By design, enrollees are a self-selected population. Focusing more attention to applicants will move more people out of the general commuter lanes and allow more background checks. Extending the renewal period will substantially reduce the waiting time for those seeking SENTRI approval and increase legitimate border traffic. The last part of my legislation encourages increased staffing and resource allocation to SENTRI. Our borders are protected by a dedicated group of Customs and INS officers. Their constant vigilance constitutes our first line of defense against threats and we owe them our gratitude. However, they need our federal assistance in carrying out their duties. I urge all of my colleagues in Congress to work with me to pass the SAFE Border Act quickly into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriations legislation. One of the most important responsibilities our Constitution gives Congress is to maintain a Navy and, among other essential funding provisions, that is what this bill is all about. This supplemental provides needed funding, procurement, operations and maintenance and personnel to allow the Navy to continue its successes. Mr. Chairman, our Navy has performed magnificently in Afghanistan, and they deserve our support. However, I wish to express my concern about potential efforts to raise the debt limit to spend up our national credit card by $750 billion. This took place during conference committee proceedings on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, the debt limit of the United States is such an important issue that it deserves a full debate in the Congress and should not be relegated to only conference committee deliberations. It is so important that many of my colleagues, including those on the other side, are supporting efforts to make it harder for Congress to raise the debt limit. Those outside Washington may wonder, why are we even concerned about the debt limit? There are at least two reasons why this is an important issue. First, the size of the debt affects interest rates. An increase in the debt will likely cause a rise in interest rates, which means working families paying higher monthly house payments, higher monthly car payments, and higher student loan payments. Second, we need to understand the context of a debt limit increase. The message it sends is families must live within a budget, but the government can continue to spend beyond its limits. Mr. Chairman, just a year ago we had a surplus and today we have a deficit, and we cannot afford to continue our deficits. To be sure, we must, we must pay for the war on terrorism, but we must still have the mechanism to keep spending under control. Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the circumstances arise, having a debate on raising the debt limit and having a stand-alone vote is a responsible action for Congress to take, but what is so irresponsible is to hide the debate from the American people. Mr. Chairman, let us be straightforward; and let us consider, as many of my colleagues have suggested, what I would like to call the ``grandkid test.'' A year ago last May I stood in the well of this Chamber and celebrated the birth of my first grandson; and I said then, when we talk about major issues of concern and consequence to our great country that we think about whether it is in the best interests of our children and our grandchildren. On the supplemental, I say yes. The war on terrorism and supporting our military, absolutely. That is in support of my grandkid. But when I think about the unlimited credit card and the impact it has on interest rates, on Social Security and Medicare, well, that requires more notice to the American people. So let us separate out these issues and subject our assessment of these additions to this good supplemental bill to the grandkid test, is it in that kid's best interests in the future.