Susan Davis

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two bills that address an important public health issue: the safety of dietary supplements. Over the past few years, we have heard about many tragedies linked to dietary supplements. This summer, America witnessed the deaths of some fine athletes. One supplement in particular, Ephedrine, has received a lot of scrutiny. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has collected more than 800 reports of Ephedrine users suffering adverse reactions, ranging from dizziness and dementia to stroke, heart attack, and sudden death. While these reports indicate that Ephedrine may be dangerous, the FDA does not have enough information to prove or disprove it is unsafe. Current law is preventing the FDA from collecting additional adverse event reports. It also prevents the agency from asking supplement companies for copies of their safety studies. Without this information, the FDA cannot adequately research the risks and benefits of dietary supplements. This is simply unacceptable. Congress has the authority and the obligation to protect American consumers. It is time for Congress to stop standing on the sidelines. We must take action. We need to stand up for Tammy Cole, a 35-year-old San Diego resident who suffered panic attacks, chest pain, and insomnia after taking an ephedra supplement for one month. We need to stand up for Sarah Ingham, a 24-year-old Manassas resident who suffered a stroke in the spring of 2000. She had been taking an ephedra supplement to lose weight for her wedding. We need to stand up for Rosanna Porras, a 15-year-old Californian who died on a high school soccer field from a massive heart attack. Her parents believe that ephedrine pills triggered an underlying heart condition, causing her death. We need to stand up for the 11 high school, college and professional football players, including Rashidi Wheeler, whose supplement use may have contributed to or caused their deaths in the last year. The problems we face today are in large part due to Congressional action in the early 1990s. In 1994, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act into law (DSHEA). This bill virtually deregulated the supplement industry. Prior to 1994, all food, drug and supplement manufacturers had to prove that their products were safe before they could be sold in the U.S. DSHEA created a substantial loophole for dietary supplements by shifting the burden of proof to the FDA. Now the FDA must prove that a dietary supplement is unsafe before it can be banned for sale. Since 1994, supplement production and sales have exploded. Industry trade groups report that supplement sales reached $16.8 billion in 2000. Americans are spending billions on products that have not been proven to be safe or effective. The American public deserves better than this. They deserve clear information about the benefits and risks of supplements. My legislation, the Ephedrine Alkaloid Consumer Protection Act and the Dietary Supplement Information Act, will give consumers the information they deserve. The Ephedrine Alkaloid Consumer Protection Act will give consumers information about the potentially lethal side effects and drug interactions of ephedrine alkaloid products. First, it will require a standardized warning to be printed on the label. The bill will also make sure that consumers know how to report any concerns or adverse reactions by requiring the FDA's MedWatch phone number and website to be printed on the product label. Finally, the bill will protect our kids by prohibiting the sale of ephedrine to minors. No person under the age of 18 years old will be able to buy ephedrine products. To ensure that this provision is enforced, we will require the products to be kept ``behind the counter'' so that sales personnel are more aware of the age restriction. Putting the product behind the counter will also make adults more aware of the dangers of Ephedrine products. If they have to ask for assistance to get the product, they will be more likely to read the warning label and talk to the pharmacist or seller about Ephedrine. My second bill, the Dietary Supplement Information Act, addresses many of the public health and safety concerns about the lack of information and regulation of products defined as dietary supplements. First, manufacturers, producers and distributors of dietary supplements will be required to register with the Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers will also be required to register their specific products with the FDA. The supplement industry will be required to submit all serious adverse event reports to the FDA within 15 days. Supplement manufacturers and the FDA will work as partners to investigate and analyze these reports. To make sure that consumers know how to report an incident to the FDA directly, my legislation will require the FDA's MedWatch phone number and website to be printed on all dietary supplement product labels. If the FDA determines that a specific supplement may have serious health consequences, it can require the manufacturer to do a postmarket surveillance study to ensure that the product is safe. I want to make it very clear that my legislation will not ban dietary supplements. However, consumers have a right to know the benefits and risks of the supplements they are taking. We cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and watch consumers suffer serious medical consequences from these products. I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me into passing these two bills swiftly into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I commend my colleagues for bringing H.R. 2666 forward. There probably is no better time, Mr. Speaker, for us to bring this forward than today. We know entrepreneurship makes our country great. In San Diego, there are many new businesses in technological and biological fields that have mushroomed as an impetus for our robust economy. We know at the university level, San Diego State University's highly acclaimed business administration school has an entire program teaching its students the skills of entrepreneurship, and that is why it is so important we resolve and bring this measure forward today because it provides the equity we all need for making such critical training available to students of vocational and technical schools. I know as a school board member that we often wrestled with the programs that were coming forward, actually bringing students often out of the vocational arena. We need to value their creativity and their moxie, their desire to really have an impact, to have their own businesses and to bring their creativity and often their risk-taking into this arena and make this kind of training available to them. So I applaud my colleagues for this. We need to provide for all business entrepreneurs at all educational levels as we move forward with these kinds of initiatives. Included in this initiative is a report back to the Congress in 18 months, and I will certainly be very interested in learning what became of these dollars. Often we do not always know. It will give us an opportunity to look at the great improvements and the successes that came out of the program and give us an opportunity to learn as well from the students, from the people that were involved. I know that we are going to have many new businesses created out of this initiative, and I look forward to seeing that happen.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution in congratulating and commemorating Tony Gwynn of the San Diego Padres upon his retirement from Major League Baseball. After 20 amazing seasons, Tony has decided to retire from the Padres and from baseball. At San Diego State University, Tony was actually a basketball star, a game that he thought came more natural to him. But when a career in basketball was not likely, Tony had to work hard at the game of baseball to get to the skill level he is at now. Tony is living proof that if you work hard, you can achieve almost anything. Tony has studied the game, he has studied the art of hitting. And years later, he has not rested at the game of baseball; but, rather, he still watches and studies film and analyzes pitchers. His strong work ethic paid off. Soon after Tony signed with the Padres, he immediately established himself as a consistent hitter. In his first full season with the Padres, he had a batting average of .351 and won his first of eight batting championships. In that first year of 1984, he took his team to the World Series. After that season, Tony never hit below .300. He currently has a lifetime batting average of .338, which is fifteenth on the all-time career list, a list that includes Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, and Tris Speaker. Two years ago, Tony reached a coveted baseball milestone by getting his 3,000th hit. His career hit total now is 3,139; and he has got a game to go. So we are still counting. While he has proven himself adept at hitting, Tony has proven himself also to be a great defensive player, winning five Gold Glove Awards. This year, Tony topped off a Hall of Fame career as an honorary player in the All-Star game. It was his sixteenth All-Star game appearance. As well as his leadership on the field, Tony has proven to be a leader off the field. He and his wife, Alicia, have been active in so many organizations in San Diego. Tony has been involved with dozens, such as his Tony and Alicia Gwynn Foundation. He has also lent his time to the San Diego Police Athletic Leagues, the Jackie Robinson YMCA, and the Casa de Amparo, just to name a few of the organizations that he and his wife have been involved in. And he was been rewarded for his efforts. In 1998, Tony was named Individual of the Year at the Equal Opportunity Awards Dinner. Throughout his career, Tony has been an example of good sportsmanship, having conducted himself with dignity. He has been such an exemplary role model for young people and for all Americans. Many people believe that Tony could have left the San Diego Padres to play in another city with another team for much more money than he was earning in San Diego. But he chose to stay. He chose to stay in San Diego, for his love of the game and his love of San Diego, a rare act today. On October 7 of this year, an era will come to an end in San Diego, the era of one of the greatest hitters in the game of baseball; the era of a San Diego sports icon; the era of Tony Gwynn. It will be strange now to watch a San Diego Padres game and not see Tony come up to the plate in a clutch situation. Of course, we all expect him to get a hit. Tony Gwynn has always been a staple of San Diego and is a true hometown hero. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring a great baseball player and a great human being for his tremendous accomplishments.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, we have just begun, I believe, to comprehend the extent of our national trauma. And while we continue to grieve, we cannot let a terrorist attack bankrupt such a critical component of our economy, so we must keep the planes in the air. But I want to remind my colleagues that we cannot stop here, and I appreciate the fact that people have expressed that tonight. We cannot stop here. What we need is a comprehensive package. We need to address airline security, and we need to address the growing employment crisis in our country. Please, Members, let us go to the next step and let us do it with the fervor and the passion that we have addressed this step as well.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Congress, I hardly expected to have to take this extraordinary step, but I do it with the grave seriousness with which it is intended. Last May I stood on this floor and I welcomed my first new grandchild, and I said at that time that for many of us the issues that we deal with today, we need to think about how they affect our children and our grandchildren. I would submit to my colleagues today that that is what I am thinking about, because what we are doing today is securing for them our American way of life. Our American way of life reflects that fragile balance between our individual freedom and the security of our Nation, because that is the cornerstone of our democracy and to which our children are born. And to our foes: You have underestimated our will to assure that that justice and that freedom flourishes throughout our land.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of the resolution. My heart goes out to everyone who experienced a loss, and to those still waiting for news about their loved ones. To the families of the 278 heroes, the firefighters and police who are missing and presumed dead, I offer my deepest condolences. I also offer my support and praise to the rescue workers and countless volunteers who are searching, as we speak, for survivors and victims. Like many of my colleagues and many Americans, my first reaction was to assess the safety of my family, especially my son, daughter-in-law, and my grandson Henry, who live in New York City. Though my news was reassuring, hundreds, even thousands of people did not enjoy that same fortune. Yesterday's tragic events tore at the heart of America's fabric, and I believe that every American's life was affected. It is from that very fabric of community that we derive our real strength, not just from our economic energy or from our military might. Mr. Speaker, we are strong and will remain strong. The attacks serve as a stark reminder of the dangers faced by a free country, and especially by those whose lives are devoted to protecting our country, whether at home or abroad. We must never forget the threats that exist. Anger and rage and evil roam the Earth, and at times these forces converge unexpectedly. Yesterday, millions of Americans started their morning routine. Americans went to their places of work. They boarded airplanes, just like every other day. Then these routines were violently interrupted. Yesterday showcased the worst and best of humanity. The precision strikes indicate a foe that cleverly calculated this move against the very heart of our community. Yet, Americans are able to rise above the grief and horror. To my colleagues and to all Americans, I say that now is not a time to abandon our priorities. As we work together to heal, we must continue to look forward and work to ensure a world safe for our children and grandchildren. We need to let our grief and our anger and our outrage work for us, not control us. Let us act with the careful and considered judgment that we as Americans possess.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Thomas malpractice amendment. I want you to know that throughout my tenure in the State legislature I supported malpractice reform. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that we do need to address this issue, and I am saddened that this amendment was developed in the middle of the night. Malpractice reform is too big and too important an issue to be addressed in this hasty, unclear manner. If you want to ask any member of the State legislature over the last few years how they feel about that, I am sure they will reflect that opinion. I am just not sure if you realize how enormous an issue it is. Do you realize that this bill would put medical malpractice cases in Federal courts for the first time? It is not a small, minor change. It is a major policy decision that should be debated on its own, rather than as a sideline discussion to another major bill. I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) brought up the letter from the AMA, because if he had only read the second paragraph, I think you would have gotten a different feeling about this letter. It goes on to say, in fact, the AMA policy has long supported medical liability reform. They have in California, it is called MICRA. They appreciate the efforts. But they also say that they have expressed concerns in the past about coupling such reforms with the patients' bill of rights. They are concerned that this amendment could interfere with the ultimate passage of meaningful patients' rights legislation. I spoke to a physician earlier today who said, yes, complicate it and kill it. I hope that is not what we are trying to do here. I know in the State assembly I tried to bring together attorneys and physicians around this matter to develop a compromise on malpractice reform. There is just no way that this House can find the right answer to this important issue without bringing all the parties involved to the table. If we want effective and responsible malpractice reform, I urge Members to vote against the Thomas amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is critical to the safety of California citizens. We have talked about many things, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are talking about safety. We have worked for many years to improve the air quality of our State, and despite our increased population, we have succeeded. Californians are committed to continuing to protect our air. However, we do not need to do it by adding ethanol to our gasoline, and we do not need the current formulation using MTBE. We do not need any additive at all. Chevron and other oil companies which produce petroleum in California have assured us that they have the technology to create a fuel which will allow California cars to meet EPA air quality standards without any additives. We have heard the argument here today, why should the Federal Government force us to purchase an unneeded product that is not readily available in California? It would cost California citizens, already beleaguered by high prices, $450 million for the extra cost of this additive. Mr. Chairman, we came here to legislate on behalf of the Federal Government. As such, we should legislate results such as the EPA air quality standards, but not dictate the methods to reach those standards. Vote for this states' rights amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, for more than 12 months now, I have worked daily for my constituents in San Diego, the first in the Nation to be shocked by suddenly doubled and tripled electricity rates. From that time on, I have joined with my colleagues here in the Congress and in the State legislature and with the San Diego regional governments to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to meet its mandate to require just and reasonable rates. We have repeatedly been rebuffed, rejected and disappointed by their responses. Although our efforts have moved from utter rejection to half-hearted measures to cap wholesale cost, they have failed to require that the industry charge rates that are just or reasonable. So it is way past Congress to act. All the Western States are affected. We must take charge and require that FERC assure that the charges for electricity are based on a standard that is simplicity itself. Does it not make sense to set prices based on the cost to produce the electricity, including fair acknowledgment of investments costs, plus a fair profit? That was the basis of charges for decades. The amendment before us does not set a cap on rates for new generating sources, so it does not discourage investment in new plants. And it sunsets at 18 months. It is what we need for the interim while we continue to add to the power plants that have gone into service this summer. It is the responsibility of Congress to give clear and explicit language on what makes rates just and reasonable.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a key difference between the Ganske-Dingell bipartisan patients' bill of rights and the Fletcher alternative: direct access to OB-GYN care. During my tenure in the State assembly, I wrote California's law that gives women direct access to their OB-GYN. This is a simple issue. A woman should not need a permission slip to see her doctor. Women have different medical needs than men. OB-GYNs often have the most appropriate medical education and experience to address a woman's health care needs. Statistics in fact show that if there are too many barriers between a woman and her doctor, she is less likely to get the medical care that she needs. The Ganske-Dingell bipartisan patients' bill of rights will require all health plans to give women direct access to their OB-GYN. The Fletcher alternative on the other hand includes conditions that could increase the time, the expense, and the inconvenience of a necessary doctor's appointment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the real patients' bill of rights, the Ganske-Dingell bill, and give their female constituents access to the health care they deserve.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of real campaign finance reform. Why is this so critical? Why is it so important to us today? There is far too much special interest money in our political democracy. Special interests are drowning out the voice of the American people, and they are sick of it. In my race in San Diego, my opponent and I were outspent by special interests by a ratio of 4 to 1. Special interests' television and mailers flooded the 49th district constituents. All of this soft money made it virtually impossible for the candidates to communicate directly to the voters. Voters were frustrated with a lack of honest information. There was so much information coming from so many undisclosed sources that they did not know whom to believe and what was coming from whom. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that voters are the center of our democratic election system. They deserve nothing less. So I urge this House to pass strong and effective campaign finance reform today, to do it without games, and to do it in an honest and straightforward way. The American public is depending upon us.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

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

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I realize this amendment will most likely not be ruled in order, but I offer it to raise awareness to a critical problem. In an effort to leverage its limited quality-of-life resources, the armed services are privatizing military family housing. I support this effort. In fact, we have some wonderful projects online in San Diego. But as you know, obviously there are unintended consequences of a good program. I would like to point out two in particular. This is creating a loss of income to school districts, and it is affecting the eligibility for free and reduced school lunch programs for the children of military families. Let me give my colleagues some background. When a family lives in a military family housing community, they basically forfeit their basic housing allowance. But when that community housing becomes privatized, this basic allowance for housing is included on the servicemembers' pay statement. That is called an LES. Servicemembers do not actually receive this income, however. It is basically pass-through. Unfortunately, under the Department of Agriculture rules, this amount is included as income in determining eligibility for free and reduced school lunches. The Department of Defense adds the allowance to the pay statement to assist them in accounting, but the servicemember is not getting any additional pay for the family, and certainly not for food for their children. This could happen. Perhaps, on a Sunday, the military housing community is owned and operated by the military. But on Monday, that housing community is operated by a private company, still on the Federal land, but the servicemember has never moved, but has less money really in his pocket if his child does not become eligible for free and reduced lunch. They had that eligibility before. So families are losing some assistance, children are losing their free lunches, and school districts are losing Federal funds. It is the smaller school districts particularly that are especially affected by this. So we need to take a look at this issue, and I think we need to change the rules. This is no way, I believe, to treat the men and women who sacrifice so much in service to our country. So what my amendment would do would be to prevent the housing allowance from being used when determining eligibility for child nutrition programs. There is another issue that we are going to face as well. I hope that we can increase the basic housing allowance for all servicemembers regardless of where they live. I know in my community of San Diego, people are paying far greater than they should out of pocket. As we increase that need and keep pace with rising housing costs, we need to be certain that it is indexed at the end of the day so that there is still more money for the families to feed their children. We do not want to cause them to lose this valuable assistance that they receive, the children receive at school, if it looks as if their incomes have increased when, in fact, we know they really have not. So I asked the assistance of my colleagues on this issue and the commitment of the chairman to work with me to resolve this issue.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes. I hope that we can work together on this, and I certainly will ask to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do that. I know that there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well who have confronted this problem in their community, and I appreciate their help and support on this as well. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their great work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, $65 million for the Mission Valley East Light Rail Extension is included in this bill, and that is part of the San Diego Trolley, an area that we have been trying to improve for a number of years. Also it includes $2 million for phase 1 of the Mid Coast Corridor Extension. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their long-standing commitment to mass transit. I also want to recognize and thank my colleagues in the San Diego congressional delegation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). We have worked together on this Mission Valley East Extension, and this bipartisan cooperation will make a big difference for all of our constituents in San Diego. What does that mean? It means that we are going to be increasing the trolley ridership by 2.5 million new annual transit riders. It means that students at San Diego State University will now be connected to our light rail system. It means that patients at Alvarado Medical Center will be connected to the light rail system as well. It also means that we are going to close the gap between our blue and our orange lines, and we will take a first step towards linking the University of California at San Diego to our light rail system. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for the opportunity to acknowledge these needed transit improvements that will be coming to the San Diego region and the big difference it will be making for all of us.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skelton amendment; and I ask the administration, where is the help? Time and again, the military was told that help is on the way. They waited, and today they are still waiting. I have a handful of letters from San Diego echoing the same sentiment: help, significant help is required. Let me share with you this dire situation in California. There are 1,200 highly skilled people all who are vital to the defense, the defense industrial base in San Diego are going to lose their jobs. Why? Why is that? The Navy requested an additional $375 million for ship-depot maintenance, but political appointees in the Pentagon and at the Office of Management and Budget reduced that amount to $200 million. Mr. Chairman, $375 million is not an arbitrary amount. It is absolutely essential to complete this year's ship maintenance and overhaul requirements. This year alone in San Diego, 26 major repairs had to be canceled, and even more were canceled in Hawaii and Washington State and in Virginia. Our sailors deserve vessels that are adequately maintained, ready to go in harm's way and perform their mission. Mr. Chairman, a continual decline in the condition of our ships is a real emergency. Clearly this funding emergency jeopardizes national security and preparedness, precipitates the rapid decline of the industrial base in this country. National security should not be a partisan issue. It is not a California issue; it is a national issue, and we are trying to help. I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment. I am sorry that it is not in order. For having moved it forward, we would be showing our troops that help is on the way.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to join me as a co-sponsor of the Renewable Energy Act for Credit on Taxes. This is a refundable tax credit to be given for investments in renewable energy systems based on solar, wind, or fuel cells providing up to $4.50 per Watt of electricity produced, capped at the lesser of 35 percent of the cost of the system or $6,000 for residences and $50,000 for commercial enterprises. It would sunset in four years. A recent ABC poll showed that 90 percent of the public support increased investment in renewable energy sources. In its National Energy Policy, the administration has also identified this need. Based on the California experience, we need to supply more energy at peak periods as soon as possible. Because of transmission gridlock both between states in the western region and within California, right now we need to increase supplies where they will be used. Public policy calls for increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. Therefore, we need to give incentives to power sources that can be put into operation relatively quickly, produce power at peak times where it will be used, and be powered by renewable energy sources. The administration's National Energy Policy states, ``Photovoltaic solar distributed energy is a particularly valuable energy generation source during times of peak use of power.'' [p. 6-10] Under-used locations for increased production of power are homes and businesses. Owners have not invested in personal energy systems in part because they have not provided a reasonable return on the investment. This gap can be bridged by using tax Solar power for water heating has been used extensively in the West over many years because it has been a good investment. It demonstrates the willingness of owners to make this investment when it is financially viable. Newer materials and more reliable systems have become available to make individual photovoltaic systems attractive as well. In April a solar demonstration home was built on the Washington Mall that not only incorporated many energy saving designs but also employed a solar energy system with back-up batteries. The additional cost for the solar system for this large, three-bedroom, two story home was given as $30,000. Is a federal tax credit enough to encourage a homeowner to make this investment? Under my bill the owner would qualify for $18,000 of the cost based on the amount of power produced; however, the proposed cap would be the lesser of 35 percent of the cost or $6,000, leaving $24,000 of uncovered cost. While this might not be a sufficient incentive for many owners, some 14 states as well as about 26 municipalities have additional rebates. California, for example, has a rebate program capped at 50 percent of the cost. In this case, the California homeowner combining the two programs would be paying only $9,000 of that cost. Without a rebate, a homeowner could buy a system of half the capacity receiving a lower rebate but still have a $9,750 net cost under this bill. The advantage of a solar solution is that in many locations the solar energy is most available when it is most needed--in the summer in the middle of the day. In other areas wind systems are viable with applications that look like a typical roof top vent suitable for residences and businesses. While there is a current production tax credit for wind energy, it is not an attractive financial incentive for individuals since the owner is using the product not selling it. Thus, a tax credit is the appropriate mechanism. I have chosen a refundable tax credit rather than a grant program as less bureaucratic and readily accessible to a taxpayer. The sunset will give incentives to immediately increase supplies. I believe it is time to take a large stride toward investing in renewable energy that will continue to produce power for many years without needing to purchase fossil fuels. We can have more clean power where we need it at peak periods.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I wanted to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for providing us this time today. We have been talking about how people generally are feeling about this; and those of us in San Diego, we were at the epicenter last year. I can tell you as we walked around the community, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) was certainly aware of this, it was almost as if all the businesses were dying. We have not got to that point yet, but people felt that way, that that could happen. I see now there is new information out really across the country about the way people are understanding what is happening. A Washington Post-ABC poll just released Tuesday showed that 56 percent of the people across the country understand an electricity crisis should be cost-based. In California I would suspect that the percentage is even higher. People are not saying there should not be some profits, but that they should be cost-based. They should not be based on some market in the sky that is just a dream. But we keep hearing that the administration is saying that cost-based prices will not increase supplies or decrease demand. That has really been their mantra. They are just not listening. Californians, I think, have not been claiming that rational, cost-plus profit prices would address the growing energy supply needs of the western states, but they are saying that that kind of cost-based pricing is critical for today's problem, today, considering what is going on in the economy. Building a power plant is a financial investment decision, and financial investment decisions that for a while people chose not to make. For the last 20 years it was not clear that more power was even needed, so energy companies did not make the financial decision to build more plants throughout the West. Now it is clear that with a 40 percent population growth just in Nevada in the past decade, and with a 20-25 percent growth in our other neighboring States, and 10 percent growth in California, that more power at peak times will be needed. And, guess what, in the last year, 16 new plants in California alone have been approved, and four will be on line this summer. Nevada businesses are considering building new plants not only to cover the needs of their enormous growth, but also to export to other States. We are seeing this growth in other places as well. In Baja, California, they are looking at the economic opportunities for selling electricity to the United States. In addition, it is working on a joint venture with U.S. companies to build a liquid natural gas conversion plant and terminal to bring liquefied natural gas economically from Australia and other areas of the world to increase our supplies. In fact, people are responding.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I wish that the President would have had an opportunity to walk into just some of the cafes, the mom and pop restaurants in our communities, because I think it was there that people really felt this shift a number of months ago in San Diego. When you have sitting on those cafe tables a charge that they are asking people to pay in addition to the cost of the lunch, of the dinner, just explaining to people what has happened in terms of their own particular costs, I think that is quite astounding. The other issue is not just the mom and pop shops. Certainly our seniors who have been so affected. But we have great concern and great fear in the community now that in fact some of the progress that they have been making, and I will take the biotech industry as one, that some of that progress may go out the window because we are faced with some of the problems that we are faced with today.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that is critical to women's health: direct access to OB-GYNs. Too many women are denied access or forced to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops before they can see their OB-GYN. This is simply unacceptable. A woman should not need a permission slip to see her doctor. OB-GYNs provide basic critical health care for women, and every woman deserves direct access to her doctor. A recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Princeton survey of OB-GYNs show that 60 percent of all OB-GYNs in managed care reported that their patients are either limited or barred from seeing their OB-GYN without first getting permission from another physician. Nearly 75 percent also reported that their patients have to return to their primary care physician for permission before they can see their OB-GYN for necessary follow-up care. Equally astounding is that 28 percent of the OB-GYNs surveyed reported that even pregnant women must first receive another physician's permission before seeing an OB-GYN. After meeting with women, obstetricians and gynecologists, health plans and providers in the State of California, I wrote a State law that gives women direct access to their OB-GYN. That law was a good first step. However, it still does not cover over 4.3 million Californians enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. In March, I introduced the Woman Act to close this loophole and ensure all women in California have direct access to their OB-GYN. Clearly this problem is not unique to California. There are still eight States that do not guarantee a woman direct access to her OB-GYN. Equally important to remember is 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. This means that one in three insured families are not protected by State direct access to OB-GYN laws. The time has clearly come to make direct access to OB-GYN a national standard. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues to pass this critical legislation quickly into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as we all reflect on the grave situation in the Middle East, I commend to all my colleagues the following OpEd piece published in the May 18, 2001 San Diego Union Tribune. Negotiations Can Stop Bloodshed (By Yuval Rotem) Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton schoolchildren have been taught that for every action there is a reaction, and that there is an axiomatic distinction between cause and effect. This truth applies both to the world of physics and to today's conflict in the Middle East. For over eight months, the citizens of Israel have been confronted with a virulent campaign of violence and terror. Israel, like any other nation, has a right and obligation to react in order to protect the lives of its citizens. The legitimacy of self-defense is a foundation of international law and of the United Nations Charter. That both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered due to the current uprising, there can be no doubt. Yet while it may be easy to assign equal blame to the two sides, there is in truth no equivalence between the actions of Palestinian terrorists and the reaction of the Israelis whom they target. If Chairman Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian leaders were to call for a cessation of shootings and bombings, an end to the violence would be well within reach. No such calls have been issued, and the Palestinians continue to shoot, and Israel is compelled to react. That anyone is killed is unjustifiable, but sometimes it is forgotten who exactly started the shooting, and who continues to deem indiscriminate killing as a legitimate bargaining chip. Israel cannot sit idly on the sidelines while its people pay the ultimate price for the Palestinian leadership's opting for confrontation over reconciliation. Palestinian leaders and militias consider violence to be an effective tool in promoting a unilateral solution to a conflict which Israel believes can only be addressed via bilateral negotiation. Palestinian gunmen purposely select targets with the intention of maximizing carnage and shock value. Suicide bombers and explosive devices containing nails and shrapnel are employed in densely populated civilian areas. Israeli children and adults are maimed and murdered while shopping at the mall or riding on the bus. Israel, forced to defend itself, undertakes operations designed to hamper further terror, striking only against those actively involved in violence. For the most part, Israeli reprisals against those initiating terror strikes are extremely accurate. However, sometimes unintended consequences have regrettably occurred. There have even been instances when children have been injured. In the vast majority of cases, this takes place when Palestinian children are intentionally used as human shields serving as buffers for gunmen firing upon Israeli targets. Remember that the Israeli army is no longer deployed in Palestinian populated areas. In order for stone-throwing children to be within close proximity to Israeli forces, they have to be consciously transported to such locations by their elders. Despite this brutal tactic, Israeli forces do their utmost to prevent casualties. Tragically, a totally innocent child, five-month-old Iman Haju, fell victim last week. She was unintentionally killed in Israeli return fire, which was directed at positions used by a Palestinian mortar crew to bombard an Israeli community just minutes earlier. The fact is that terrorists have been consistently launching mortars from civilian sites such as school yards and apartment buildings. By contrast, Palestinian militants have routinely and specifically targeted Israeli children. Shalhevet Pass, a 10-month-old Israeli girl, was spotted, fixed and then shot in the head by a Palestinian sniper in March. In the past week, two 13-year-old Israeli boys were brutally stoned to death, and their bodies mutilated by terrorists while hiking in a riverbed close to their homes. These are not cases of unintentional civilian causalities. These and other Israeli children were slain because their Palestinian executioners found them to be useful targets. Such heinous actions do not arise in a vacuum. Since the Palestinian rejection of the proposals offered by former Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton, the Palestinian Authority has carefully orchestrated a campaign of hatred and incitement through its official newspapers, television and radio stations, its schools and religious institutions. Palestinian Authority spokesmen have praised violence and suicide bombings. The Palestinian Authority has freed known terrorists from prison, and official Palestinian police and security forces have joined in attacks upon Israeli civilians with impunity. Palestinians have employed illegal mortars and anti-tank weapons against Israeli communities, and heavy arms such as Katyusha artillery rockets and shoulder-fired anti- aircraft missiles are now being smuggled into Palestinian territory. The Palestinian leadership is doing nothing to prevent further escalation of violence, and the people of Israel are wondering just exactly what the Palestinians are trying to achieve. An end to the occupation? Some 98 percent of Palestinians already live under Palestinian control. Statehood and independence? It was offered and rejected. An end to check points? More territory? It was offered and rejected. Not only were all attempts to genuinely settle the conflict rejected out of hand, but the Palestinians responded to them--instead of with counter-proposals for peace--with intifada, jihad and terror. The current confrontation is one which Israel neither sought nor initiated, and still, there is no desire for punishment and revenge. There is no wish to suppress or repress anyone. What point does it serve? Negotiation and education for peace are the only means forward, and hopefully a meaningful resumption of dialogue can begin again soon. In the meantime, the Palestinian leadership must be made to understand that terrorism and bloodshed cannot exist side by side with diplomacy. The path of violence was supposed to have been forever abandoned on Sept. 13, 1993, when Chairman Arafat shook the hand of Israel's late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and pledged in word and in writing to forswear achieving his goals by the sword. Though that day over seven years ago seems so remote, it must continue to guide all sides even now. Terror will not bring the Palestinian people what they desire. They will not be able to gain through violence what they could not gain through negotiation. Only a return to talks and moderation can bring a mutually acceptable settlement for both sides. Rotem is consul general of Israel to the southwestern United States.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

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

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Impact Aid is a program that is over 50 years old, yet for the last 30 years Congress has failed to fund the program fully. This program is designed to offset the losses school districts suffer in property taxes when Federal lands reduce their tax rolls but provide many children to be educated. This funding is critical to balance the local school district income so that the educational programs for all the students of the affected district is not diminished. The issue, Mr. Chairman, is one of fairness. The level at which Impact Aid is currently funded does not begin to offset the costs for educating a child. Generations of military families have been based in San Diego and Coronado in my district, and developments of federally- owned housing are home to children throughout the area. We are very proud of the opportunity to serve the children of our military forces. Congress should be equally proud of providing the full funding that it promised half a century ago. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for bringing this forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am actually in support of this measure.