Susan Davis

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for presenting this amendment. Professional development for educators is an important strength of this reauthorization act. We know that studies repeatedly show that the quality of teachers is the single most important predictor of student success. In California, we instituted a beginner teacher support program that provides the exact kind of support proposed in this amendment. My district in San Diego County initiated such peer-teacher mentoring in the 1980s, and years of experience have shown that it does two very important things. It makes the new teacher more effective from the first week in the classroom, and it increases retention of new teachers beyond the 5-year burnout that is a cause of our undersupply of trained teachers. And in addition, where midcareer teachers are recruited under alternative credentialing, consistent on-site peer coaching is a necessity to their success. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on this proven program. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for presenting it.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure for me to join with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue. As a school board member in San Diego from 1983 to 1992, I felt like we were always going to lobby on behalf of these students. We always had to make a case for these students. It does not seem right that we had to make a case for the children of the families who were fighting for this Nation's security. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are working together on this today, and I certainly hope all of my colleagues will join us on a strong ``aye'' vote.

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

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

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the voucher proposal that has just been addressed, and also to the pilot proposals that are with us right now. We have to ask ourselves why would we have a pilot program? And when we have pilot programs, we do want to demonstrate that there is merit to them. And we often want to demonstrate that there is merit in going beyond a particular community or a particular charismatic leader who puts together a program. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my colleagues that if we are really trying to bring the pilot to scale that is being proposed here today, we have to look at the communities and the communities in which they will realistically be brought to scale. If I can offer San Diego for a moment, we surveyed the number of private school slots available in San Diego, and we surprisingly found a realistically good number: 1,666 slots. Out of that, 1,300 were religious schools. The rest were identified as nonreligious, but we are looking at a unified school district of 132,000 students. Yes, it sounds innocent to have a pilot program; but would we ever be able to bring that up to scale? You can probably demonstrate that it has merit. I do not question that. You can do that in select areas. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to go beyond that. We are trying to truly leave no child behind. Bringing a pilot program to scale in communities that really do not have the resources is unrealistic; and I believe it is unfair to the population that we are trying to reach.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership on both sides, because they have worked diligently to create a document that would focus Federal funds on those students who are most needy. While each of us would like to see changes in language or additions to the program, it is important to respect the restraints of these compromises and reject attempts to commit major surgery that would kill the patient. Studies regularly show that students learn best in small classes with high quality teachers. One of the most critical focuses of this bill is to infuse significant funding into professional development for educators. I want to speak in support of one such program that I believe has the potential to dramatically raise the overall performance of teachers, inspiring good teachers to become excellent teachers. While it is not contained in House bill, it is part of the Senate bill and will be before the conference committee. This is the authorization of funding for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which would support a portion of the application fees so teachers can engage in the demanding year-long demonstration of their accomplishment in the act of teaching. I particularly support funding to conduct outreach for the program because I believe it is a program that can uniquely energize increasing professional expertise for all teachers, and improve the culture of teaching in schools. Teachers seeking this certification have to justify the decisions they make every day on how they teach and respond to children of diverse backgrounds, learning styles, and achievement levels. They answer these questions in writing and through videotape portfolios of their own interaction with students. One of the most critical elements is the follow-up self-reflection critiquing their own performance. Teachers who have survived this rigorous process repeatedly tell me that just doing it has made them better teachers. Mr. Chairman, we need to give incentives to those teachers, especially in the very schools targeted in this bill, so that they will have the opportunity to demonstrate their accomplished teaching skills.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the global gag rule. It has been stated before, but it bears repeating: the global gag rule imposes restrictions on foreign organizations that would be illegal and unacceptable in our own country. In this country, we value our freedom of speech, and we value the sanctity of our doctor-patient relationships. The global gag rule prevents foreign, nongovernmental organizations from participating in public policy debates regarding the right to choose. Can any of us imagine if Congress passed a law that silenced the Christian Coalition or Planned Parenthood? The American public would not stand for such a blatant violation of the freedom of speech. Like American groups, foreign organizations should have the right to advocate for their cause. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, however, the most egregious impact of the global gag rule is that it violates the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. We should not be making decisions about personal, private health care decisions. It is absolutely critical that women are able to discuss their health care concerns with their doctors. So in turn, doctors need to be able to answer all of their questions and discuss every available health care option. If Congress votes to limit what doctors can say to their patients, we will jeopardize the health of women around the world. The time has come to stand up for democracy and patients' rights. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to repeal the global gag rule today.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is really adding insult to injury, I think, out in the West. When we have seen the energy prices going up 900 percent, people want to know where that is coming from. I think, when it comes to gasoline prices as well, I know in the San Diego community, we have looked to our neighbors. We do not have to travel that far. I took trips every Sunday when I used to visit my dad actually in Orange County, and we knew where to fill up because gasoline prices were about 35 cents less. Now we are seeing high prices throughout the State, but we still have some communities that seem to be affected more than others.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) bringing this to our attention, and it gives me an opportunity to speak particularly about the situation in San Diego. San Diego families and businesses have been devastated with soaring energy prices since last July, and so now we are faced with rising gasoline prices. Here, too, San Diego was first with the most, not the distinction that we would necessarily like. Prices are almost always 10 percent higher than neighboring Los Angeles. With these prices soaring across the county, San Diego is still at the head of the parade. Much attention has been focused on issues of supply and demand, and these are important. But there are other predatory practices that crank up the price at the pump. In August of 1998, as chair of the California Assembly Consumer Protection Committee, I held hearings on the causes of high gasoline prices and why they are so particularly affected in my community of San Diego. We learned a lot during these hearings. We learned about mini- marketing techniques that control the supply. We learned that there are practices where companies sell the same gasoline to different outlets at different prices and discriminate against some communities. These practices now are being challenged in the Wholesale Motor Fuel Fairness and Competition Restoration Act that is being authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and I am very happy to be a cosponsor of that. There are several things that this legislation will do, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) on them. One, they require that petroleum producers reveal their pricing structure. It seems like a sensible thing to do that will be helpful to consumers to know. Two, it would make it illegal for companies to discriminate on price regardless of who is purchasing it. Third, it will mandate that the Federal Trade Commission study the relationships between ownership of gas stations and the high price of motor fuel. I think all of these elements of this legislation are needed and will make it more difficult for oil companies to practice what we consider price zoning, redlining, and discriminatory wholesale pricing. It is only right that consumers know how rebates, refunds, and discounts to dealers affect the prices that they pay at the pump. I think we now have an opportunity and we now should shine the spotlight on how gas is priced so we can then return to competitive pump prices. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for bringing these issues to our attention.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my very special pleasure to rise today and celebrate the birth of Henry Sloane Davis. Many of us have heard the expression that if we knew how great grandparenting was, we might have skipped the kids. I certainly enjoy my children and it is wonderful being a mother-in- law, but I can assure everyone, and many in the audience know this, that holding one's grandchild for the first time is just a phenomenal experience. I know that I came here to Congress to make the world a better place, and there is nothing that will rededicate, I think, one's efforts to that than the birth of a grandchild. I want to thank my many colleagues who have perhaps suffered through all the pictures that I have been showing them. We are really very human here, and I am thankful when we have these special events in our lives and people respond as warmly as they have to me. I then know that we all are focused on the right things. Whenever we vote, we want to be thinking about how that vote will affect the lives of our children, our grandchildren, and their children. I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to celebrate Henry's birth.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my district is home to over 80 military installations and over 25,000 military families. Along with most other San Diegans, I am honored to have military families living in our neighborhoods and sending their children to our schools. Impact Aid is vital to communities in the San Diego area who have a high proportions of military families. In my district, the City of Coronado is a prime example. Coronado has a population of 29,229 and is home to the North Island Naval Air Station. During a recent visit to the Coronado Public Schools, it was brought to my attention that school administrators are having difficulty receiving the impact aid they deserve and counting on the impact aid they need. While students from military families regularly make up 41% of pupils, in a given year, the district can receive as little as $400,000 or as much as $1 million in impact aid funding. Anyone who's ever created a budget knows you can't operate with that kind of insecurity. Impact Aid is a matter of fairness to the school districts like Coronado and San Diego Unified which educate children of the military. Property taxes and state taxes fund our schools along with some federal funding targeted to particular needs. However, military bases and military-owned housing are not on the property tax roles to contribute their share of local taxes to fund education. Budgets of those districts are stressed by large and often changing numbers of military children. In some cases, parents of special needs students are purposely assigned to bases in districts where these services will be readily available. For over fifty years, the federal government has offset this missing revenue source to the impacted districts. However, the funds are authoried annually, and the formula has not been fully funded for the last thirty years. The bill which I have co-authorized with Representative Kirk and which has been introduced today will assure that this funding will be in every year's budget. Schools are entitled to this money to educate the children of our military residents. We are proud to have them in our schools. The federal government should make this commitment permanent.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 85 and 86, I was delayed due to aircraft mechanical problems. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Women's Obstetrician and Gynecologist Medical Access Now Act, the WOMAN Act. This bill will ensure that every woman has direct access to her ob-gyn. When I served in the California State Assembly, I heard from many women that they were being denied access or had to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops to see their ob-gyn. Statistics show that if there are too many barriers between a woman and her doctor, she is much less likely to get the medical care she needs. 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. Women have different medical needs than men, and ob-gyns often have the most appropriate medical education and experience to address a woman's health care needs. It is not hard to see what a difference direct ob-gyn access makes in women's health care. Imagine a working woman in San Diego who has a urgent medical problem that requires an ob-gyn visit. She works forty- five hours a week and has limited sick and vacation time. On Monday she calls from work to make an appointment with her primary care physician. If she is lucky, she gets an appointment for Tuesday morning and takes time off to go see her doctor. Her doctor agrees she should be seen by her ob-gyn and gives her a referral. Tuesday afternoon she returns to work and calls her ob-gyn. The doctor is in surgery on Wednesday, but they offer her an appointment on Friday morning. On Friday she takes another morning off work and finally gets the care she needs. This unnecessary referral process has resulted in her taking an extra morning off work and delayed her proper medical care by 5 days. The patient, employee, primary care physician, and health plan provider would have saved money and time if the patient had been able to go directly to her ob-gyn. A recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ Princeton survey of ob-gyns showed that 60% of all ob-gyns in managed care reported that their patients are either limited or barred from seeing their ob-gyns without first getting permission from another physician. Nearly 75% 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% 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. 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 come to make direct access to an ob-gyn a national standard. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation quickly into law.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the emergency landing of the Navy EP-3 aircraft in China demonstrates the nature of the risk that our service members endure each day. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, brave men and women put themselves in the face of danger. My heart goes out to those on the ground in China and to their families who anxiously await their return. I call on President Bush and President Jiang to engage in a dialogue that results in the quickest possible reunion of our Navy personnel and their families. As we all wait, let us remember the dangers abroad and the sacrifices endured by our service members. Let us also remember the demands that military service places on their families. I recently spoke with a young woman who had just recently married a young sailor. Until now, she had always expected her husband to return home each night. Now the impact of being a Navy wife hits home. There is always the possibility that ``he may not come home.''

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join my colleagues and thank them for bringing this resolution forward. I want to send my condolences once again to the families of the slain students. We mourn their loss of life. But we also mourn a loss of innocence, a loss of innocence for a community but also for all the young people throughout our communities who yearn to grow up safe and they yearn to grow up loved. It has been said that most of the communities that we live in would be in denial around an incident like this and say that it just can't happen here. Well, it can happen, it does happen, it happens far too frequently. Where are the answers? The answers are most likely right in our backyards. I ask all of us here today and in our communities to value our kids, to talk to our kids, and to enlist their support as we work to create better communities. 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. We are here today to mourn a tragedy. In many ways, we mourn a double tragedy today at Santana High School on March 5, 2001, because, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues as we grieve the loss of two bright young students, Bryan Zuckor and Randy Gordon. But we also are heartbroken that no one heard Charles Williams, ``Andy's'' cries for help and saddened that he did not find another way to express his anger and his pain. We pray for the families of the injured students and the school staff. We also recognize that, when we are faced with such a high- profile tragedy, that we must also grieve for the thousands of children and their families that die every day because of violence and accidents in our community. I want to commend law enforcement, the school staff, and students at Santana High School, and say how grateful I am and I know how grateful my colleagues and those in our community are with the San Diego Sheriff's Department, and particularly the officers Ali Perez and Jack Smith. We also want to recognize off-duty San Diego police officer Robert Clark. These three men responded with precision, with valor, and courage, and in doing so saved the lives of countless others. Our deepest gratitude also extends to the Santana High School personnel, particularly Principal Karen Degischer and all the teachers, the counselors, the school security, and their support staff, for their professionalism, for their courage. We know that they had previously practiced drills and procedures for such emergencies, and they did well during this horrible crisis. We must also commend the student body of Santana High School for their resilience, their solidarity, and courage and their decision now to move on. When anything like this happens, we all look for reasons. It has been stated too many guns and not enough adults. There is an allegation: not enough real listening going on in our community. We know as well that the teenage years are just some of the most difficult years in a person's life. Young people's bodies are changing, the social dynamics of school are difficult for all kids and the insecurities abound. Too many kids may maintain a cover of anonymity in a school; and unfortunately, we know that there are lots of ways that they can do that quite easily in a large high school. So now we are looking for answers. It is not the time to blame, but rather the time to fight, to fight for our kids. So we think about going back to the basics and back to the golden rule. But if we talk about teaching our kids the golden rule, we have got to understand and recognize that adults are not always modeling the golden rule. I think that we do not have enough exposure to positive parenting in our community. Sheriff Bill Colander, who used to head up the youth agency in our State, reminds us that, when they began to teach kids about parenting in the security situation that they had, they recognized that, in fact, that was not the parenting that they had experienced; and in fact, in many cases, that is often true. We need to encourage mentoring. Kids need to have mentors, and kids need to be mentors. We might think, whether Andy had been tapped to help out a young person in his school, to work with a second grader on reading, whatever it may be, that tapped and valued the person that he was, and perhaps that might make a difference. We have good models in our schools of kids who are mentors. Teachers as well need more time and resources to spend with their students. We know that our classes are too big, and that is another reason why kids can live in anonymity in our school. Large classes and large schools do not create an atmosphere conducive to getting to know kids as much as we should. We need to create an atmosphere at school so kids feel both physically and mentally safe; that they can talk about their prejudices, their feelings, and their opinions. Everyone has had adverse experiences, and so everyone needs to feel supported and listened to, valued in who they are and what they have to contribute. As legislators and community leaders, we need to be researching the best practices in other communities and disseminate this information in neighborhoods. Ironically, Santana had programs. They had taken some good first steps, not final solutions. They had developed peace programs. They had participated in minitowns, a very popular and well-thought-out program in our community. But all programs need to be backed up with an evaluation. What works? What does not? Why? We need to look at that information. We need to solicit those opinions from young people. In the State Assembly, I created the Adolescent Task Force; and in that, we brought young people to the table. We enlisted their ideas. We broadened the circle so kids who often felt that they were not included perhaps in associated student body or other clubs would be included in that forum. Really listening as opposed to telling them what they need is important for all of us. We have a challenge for change. One thing that we know is many of our young people, in fact most of our young people, are very resilient. Let us learn from them. How can they teach us about that resiliency? Our challenge is to support them. It has been said that we in America are pretty good at grieving, and yet we wait for a crisis to change. We have to ask, Why are there not more programs to teach kids inclusion? Why are there not more public service announcements on the impacts of bullying developed by students around issues of guns of getting together and finding ways of solving their problems? We need to enlist the media in that, but we need to allow young people to have the input to create these messages because they really know what it is that people and young people will relate to; that through listening, through mentoring, and modeling, kind, caring behavior, we can stop some of these devastating tragedies. I hope that my colleagues will join me in our deepest condolences to the families and friends of Bryan Zuckor and Randy Gordon. Let us bring students to the center of our discussions and work together to ensure that these tragedies do not continue to be repeated in any community. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

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

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for giving me the opportunity to rise today and urge Congress to make a priority in this session of budgeting sufficient funds for special education costs. I know it has been suggested that we look at the first of five annual steps this year, so that we work towards funding 40 percent of these special education costs. This is about children. It is about children who have been challenged orthopedically, challenged physically in the full use of their senses or in the thinking processes that block their learning. We owe them a free education that accommodates their needs, even when these are in the high cost/small incidence category. We know that the effect on school district budgets of providing this court-ordered civil right can be enormous. Inevitably, meeting these moral and these local obligations leaves fewer resources for all the other educational purposes that we have. In the California legislature, I worked for many months with educators and concerned groups to author a formula for California to distribute its available funds more equitably. It was about 17 years that they have been trying to find a way to do this. The goal for Federal funding would only reach 40 percent of the assumed average additional cost, and it would only reach this level in a way that we are talking about today several years down the road. Some have argued that this might be too much money in some districts or that if the Federal Government assures these funds that a district might somehow identify more students as qualifying. I just do not believe that these are legitimate concerns. From my work in the California legislature, I know that the actual costs of educating special needs students varies a great deal. To receive an appropriate education, some children need full-time assistance or must be taught in special, sometimes private facilities. Children with severe disabilities may be a higher percentage of the disabled student population in one district than in the average nationally. I know that as a school board member in San Diego, we were always aware that military families were stationed in San Diego because of our special ed program, so that in many ways we attracted children to the district, and other children should not have to pay that price. We ought to fund the program properly. Costs for special needs students can differ, we know, from community to community, because many States and communities have high costs of cost of living and spend a great deal annually on the costs for each pupil. Teacher salaries we know too may reflect that high cost of living and certified special education teachers are in short supply in many communities of our country. Such limited resources in other States and communities provide much less money per child on average and even after the Federal contribution, the unmet needs of disabled students create a much larger debt in their budgets. I have yet to see a school district that would consider even 40 percent of additional special education funding as an incentive to identify students inappropriately, because doing so commits them to an extensive and expensive program of evaluating and meeting these children's needs. I believe that it is our fundamental responsibility, and I am pleased that my colleagues have spoken to this as well, that we commit today to a plan for meeting the 40 percent funding goal without taking the dollars from other ongoing educational programs. I thank the gentleman from Maine for bringing this to us. In truth, this is a bipartisan issue. We know that, because there are a number of bills that have been introduced in the Congress from both Democrats and Republicans. We all recognize there is a need. We have heard from our communities for years and years and years on this issue. But we must look at it within the context of the larger budget and our tax debate. I thank the gentleman very much for bringing this to our attention and for being part of the dialogue today.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the well-fashioned Democratic alternative and to clarify also a mistake. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, staff inadvertently added me as a cosponsor rather than the correct Davis. As the chairman knows, there are several of us here now. I respectfully request the record show I am not a cosponsor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the well fashioned Democratic alternative and to clarify my intentions with regard to H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. On January 31, due to a clerical error, I was added as a cosponsor to H.R. 333. Evidently, it was intended to list my like-named colleague from Virginia. I was never contacted by the sponsor regarding cosponsorship and did not wish to do so. It is somewhat rare that there are more members with the name Davis-- five this term--than Smith, Lee or Jones, the usual winners. With that confusion behind us, I want to express my strong support for the Democratic alternative fashioned and sponsored by several of my colleagues. There is no doubt that the bankruptcy system needs reform, however, we must ensure that we do not handicap well-meaning members of our society who have fallen on hard times. Most consumers who file for bankruptcy are not deadbeats, but instead are working families who have experienced a catastrophic event such as illness, job loss, or a recent divorce. The Democratic alternative seeks to remove many of the provisions of the original bill that may hurt lower and middle income families who are in financial difficulty by tilting the playing field against working families and small businesses in favor of creditors.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, there is widespread agreement that improving education must be our priority in this session of Congress. Fortunately, there is bipartisan agreement about much of the thrust of a program to use our surplus to substantially increase funding for programs that will reach the poorest students. An important area that we must work on, however, is how to deal with schools where children are not succeeding in learning. As a member of the California Assembly's Education Committee, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this issue. The program which was put in place makes very clear rewards for schools which demonstrate improvement for students at all levels of achievement. But what happens where a school doesn't improve? This is the important difference. We do not propose using critical funds in the Title I program for low income students to offer a portion of the cost for a child to seek private education. Instead, the failing schools themselves much be changed--through focusing professional development dollars on the principals and teachers or, if necessary replacing the leadership altogether. No school should be allowed to fail. One of the most critical elements of the New Democrat proposal for the Three R's, therefore, is investment in recruiting, training, and retraining teachers. We must do our best to support our professional educators. Every child has a right to an excellent teacher.

Mrs. DAVIS of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a California student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in our community. Lanna Walsh of San Diego has just been named one of California's top honorees in the 2001 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in the United States. Lanna Walsh is being recognized for founding a tutoring and mentoring program that pairs high school students with elementary and middle school students through the county public library system. She is a senior at Patrick Henry High School. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions this young citizen is making. As a former director of a youth leadership program myself, I know what an incredible difference these programs make in our community. Volunteers like Lanna are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. I heartily applaud Lanna Walsh for making San Diego a better place to live, and for the positive impact she is making on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can, and do, play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.