Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Second Opinion Coverage Act--legislation that will ensure the accessibility and coverage of medical second opinions.

Imagine that your doctor tells you that you must undergo radical surgery that may threaten the use of a limb or leave you with a serious chronic condition. Understandably, you would request a second opinion from another physician. Most health care groups see the value in such requests and provide patients with a second opinion. Besides giving patients much needed peace of mind, second opinions can benefit health plans by reducing the number of invasive procedures and result in better patient care through increased dialogue about treatment options.

However, when I was a member of the California State Assembly, I heard from a number of patients who experienced a glitch in their health care coverage. They noticed the absence of a clear process for obtaining medical second opinions. These patients, many struggling with challenging health conditions, had difficulties obtaining second opinions through their health plans.

After meeting with patients, physicians and health groups, I authored a law in California that guarantees coverage of second opinions. Patients, meeting any one of several qualifying conditions, are entitled to a timely second opinion by a ``qualified health care professional,'' within 72 hours in cases of serious or imminent health threat. When another expert is not available within the provider group or network, the organization will pay for an appropriately qualified doctor outside of the plan. Patients are responsible for the costs of applicable co-payments.

The law in California was a good first step. Unfortunately, this legislation does not cover individuals enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into 67 million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. I believe the time has come to make access to second opinions a national standard.

I urge you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Women's Obstetrician and Gynecologist Medical Access Now Act, the WOMAN Act. This bill will ensure that every woman has direct access to her

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2007. This legislation would take the long-overdue step of prohibiting chief state election officials from taking part in the political campaigns of federal candidates in elections over which the officials have supervisory authority.

As a former President of the League of Women Voters in San Diego and an American voter myself, I know that election officials are entrusted with a crucial responsibility for our democracy. Their only allegiance must be to the will of-the voters, not to partisan political agendas.

I think we can all agree that an inherent conflict of interest exists when a state's chief election official is responsible for monitoring and certifying the results of a federal election while actively participating in the campaign of one of the candidates in that election.

In the last several years, multiple Secretaries of State have captured national attention and incited great controversy because of their political involvement in elections they were responsible for overseeing.

Although such individuals may be honorable public servants with no improper intentions, it is of the utmost importance for the integrity of our democracy that we provide legal safeguards to ensure the public trust is never violated.

This is not a partisan issue. The record shows that officials of both parties have in the past held these two types of positions simultaneously. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American people's faith in the integrity of our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this important legislation to protect the public's trust in the electoral process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Dr. William M. Kelso for his distinguished career in historical archaeology and for his contributions to the historical record of the United States of America.

From his early professional beginnings as Assistant Field Archaeologist, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1964 to his current position as Director of Archaeology, Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA), Jamestown Rediscovery Archaeology Project, he has consistently demonstrated his earnest desire to further advance the research and support of archaeology in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America. During the 1970s Dr. Kelso served as Virginia's first state archaeologist and established programs and innovative methods and techniques that are currently in use. The broad range of his achievements include his role as Resident Archaeologist, Monticello home of Thomas Jefferson located in Albemarle County, Virginia, and later Director of Archaeology, Monticello, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. Further credentials include his role as Lecturer at the University of Virginia and later Adjunct Professor of the College of William and Mary.

Perhaps his most notable contribution was when he served, as Director of Archaeology for the APVA Jamestown Rediscovery project, where his leadership was instrumental in discovering the remains of the English 1607 James Fort. This historic site is the first permanent English settlement in British North America and led to the establishment of English Common law and the first form of representative government in the New World. The archaeological evidence includes structural remains as well as accompanying artifacts representing seventeenth century material culture that documented the location of the fort.

Additionally, he served as Historical Archaeologist for the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission and has extensive scholarly publications to his credit as well, that are widely circulated in academia both nationally and internationally.

Dr. Kelso has promoted the knowledge and awareness of history and archaeology among the general public. He deserves national recognition for his monumental contributions to our nation's history as the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown approaches in 2007.

Thanks to Dr. Kelso, a more accurate story can now be told regarding the arrival and ultimate survival of the first English settlers to land on the soil of Jamestown, Virginia, including the roles of Native Americans and the later arrival of African Americans. This extraordinary effort is largely a gift from Dr. William M. Kelso, who through his dedication, diligence, skill and grit, has illuminated the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give this administration, any administration, the ability to prosecute, convict, and punish individuals who have committed terrorist acts and who are planning acts against the United States. But we must do this under the guidelines outlined by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

The Court entrusted this Congress with the duty to reform military tribunals in a matter consistent with the Constitution and international treaty obligations.

While the Senate attempted to respect our obligations under Geneva, concern remains. We have heard that on many occasions that this bill will grant the Executive the power to define certain types of interrogation methods that may be inconsistent with common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in response to Hamdan, the House Armed Services Committee heard from current and former judge advocate generals. Mr. Speaker, I listened to them. Their testimony was compelling. Many spoke out against modifying the Geneva Conventions in any way, in anyway, because of the risk that this provision could put our troops in harm's way and could be found to be inconsistent with Hamdan. Congress must ensure that this doesn't happen.

In this bill, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we miss an opportunity to be absolutely clear on these points and to show the world that America can be tough on terrorism while staying true to the values we hold so dear.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of America's veterans seeking to start and operate their own businesses.

Along with my colleagues Mr. Evans from Illinois and Ms. Herseth from South Dakota, I offer The Veterans Corporation Reauthorization and Enhancement Act of 2006 to ensure

our veterans have access to the training, the assistance, and the capital to start and manage a business.

Congress passed The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 establishing the National Veterans Business Development Corporation to provide all of these crucial aspects of entrepreneurship to veterans.

As a result of that landmark legislation, the Veterans Corporation has provided training to over 8,000 veterans and has helped over 550 veterans start businesses during 2006 alone.

Unfortunately, Congress has yet to reauthorize the Veterans Corporation, leaving its funding in question each year.

It was an honor to offer an amendment to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2007 (H.R. 5672) in June increasing its funding to $1.5 million for the next fiscal year.

Now, I join with Mr. Evans and Ms. Herseth to introduce legislation ensuring funding for this worthy program through 2012.

By passing this legislation, we can make sure our brave service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will have access to entrepreneurship training.

Those who are courageously fighting abroad deserve the opportunity to start a business and achieve that aspect of the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to act on this legislation and encourage business ownership for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I support moving stem cell research forward and believe H.R. 810 will accomplish it in an ethical and responsible manner.

It is almost 2 years since my daughter-in-law, Naomi, underwent a kidney transplant. I marvel at the combined results of the many people and years of science and research that came before her which gave her that opportunity .

Naomi was lucky and found an eligible donor in her brother. The transplant operation was a success. In fact, just a month ago, our family cheered on Naomi at the Transplant Olympics.

It seems like a happy ending, but the story does not end here.

My daughter-in-law takes a number of drugs to keep her body from rejecting her new kidney. I hope her body will be able to support her transplant for many years.

Hopefully, Naomi will not need to face another transplant for many, many years. Clearly, she may not be able to go to a sibling again.

Will new research bring her new hope in the future?

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I have a personal reason for seeing an expansion of the existing stem cell lines.

New stem cell lines hold the promise of advancing medical research and providing cures to a number of diseases.

After years of work, both the House and Senate passed bipartisan stem cell legislation. Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed this critical bill. Despite a valiant effort in the House, we could not override this veto.

We need to think about tomorrow--what kind of future do we want to provide for the millions of individuals who live with life-threatening illnesses and their families?

If we don't move forward, we will not have the chance to develop innovative treatments, including the potential of growing kidneys.

I hope I can give Naomi and other families like ours that chance.

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

Madam Speaker, I share your concern about the grave nature of the ongoing violence in the Middle East.

It's good we are here talking about these very serious issues. I am pleased to see honest debate about the nature of this conflict and the need to stand with Israel. But what else should this Congress be doing?

It is vital that we engage one another in these critical days. With American military assets already deployed to the region for the evacuation effort, and the risk of escalation high, we must work together to get this right.

Passing this resolution, however, is only the first step.

After expressing our will, Congress must insist that the White House take our resolution and use it to encourage the international community to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah and expose them for what they really are--terrorist groups openly operating within the borders of democratically elected regimes.

The recent events in the Middle East have troubled us all. The campaign by Hamas and Hezbollah to kidnap Israeli soldiers and launch rocket attacks in Israel has the potential to destabilize the entire region and invite an expanded conflict.

Israel's ongoing incursions into Lebanon should rightly be viewed as retaliations against Hezbollah--and not against the people of Lebanon.

Like many of my colleagues, I have traveled to Lebanon and seen first hand the potential that country has. Like Israelis, the Lebanese want nothing more than to live in peace and prosperity.

But as fast as a rocket flying across the Israel border, the dreams of the Lebanese have been put on hold. Once again, their population is held hostage by foreign interests. And once again, the threat to Israeli sovereignty has forced an armed response.

I agree with Secretary Rice that Israel has a right and obligation to defend its people. That is exactly what Article 51 of the U.N. Charter guarantees to all sovereign nations.

As justified as their response may be, Israel must continue to be mindful of the effects, both physical and psychological, that their actions have on civilians in the region.

There is substantial evidence that Israel has taken several measures to minimize harm to the civilian population in Lebanon.

This includes the dropping of warning pamphlets in advance of Israeli missions in civilian areas.

It also includes the use of advanced weaponry that targets a military objective without harming civilians or civilian infrastructure.

But we must be honest. When engaged in armed conflict it is difficult to ensure the safety of civilians.

In fact, Hezbollah and Hamas purposefully operate in populated areas, often putting civilians between heavily armed terrorists and the Israeli military.

The effects of this type of warfare is also painful to Israel.

As Golda Meir so poignantly stated,'' When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.''

As dire as events on the ground appear, there is room for U.S. leadership. The question now is what form that leadership should take.

The administration must swiftly do what it can to create conditions in the region that will open the doors to diplomacy.

This Congress expects the President to work toward achieving this goal. Once more favorable conditions are created, it should be the administration's priority to dispatch our senior diplomatic leaders, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region as soon as possible.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying I appreciate the sensitivity of my colleagues on this issue who believe this bill is about veterans. I, too, have a deep appreciation of our veterans and the sacrifices they have made for our Nation and our freedoms.

If this bill were nothing more than a veterans issue, we would have a very simple decision before us today. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The courts have told us time and time again what this issue is about. It is about a demonstrated preference of one religion over all others. It is about a uniquely religious symbol on public land. Make no mistake about it, this bill is not about preserving a veterans memorial. It is about preserving a 29-foot cross that sits within the boundaries of a veterans memorial, a veterans memorial that is supposed to honor all veterans.

Yet towering over the American flag, and the plaques, names, and photos of honored veterans, and I can see many of their faces in the plaques today, is a 29-foot symbol of one religion, and that is why we are here today.

A district court ruling on the memorial noted, ``Even if one strains to view the cross in the context of a war memorial, its primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians are being honored.''

I can certainly understand, Mr. Speaker, the emotion that this issue has generated. Believe me, I can understand that emotion. But as today's discussion has proven, this issue has become more about a cross than about a veterans memorial. Our focus should be on the veterans, and it should be inclusive of all veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to share the words of one of my constituents who just recently wrote me. He says, ``My father, a Bronze Star recipient for being wounded twice during D-Day, died a few years back, and I would like to pay tribute to his service to our country by purchasing a plaque to honor him.

``Mt. Soledad is one mile from where I live, and it would be the most logical choice, given its beautiful location and proximity.

``However, my father, being a practicing Jew, would be dishonored by the cross.'' That was the way he felt he would see it. ``Shouldn't,'' he asked, ``a war memorial pay homage to all who served and defended this country?''

And he continues to write, ``It is un-American to create a memorial to veterans which is not all-inclusive.

``There are many things,'' he writes, ``which could be erected as a tribute, but a cross, a crescent moon, a statue of Buddha, or a Star of David, are completely inappropriate and illegal.

``This is all about religion, because if the monument being considered were a statue of a dove or a soldier, we would not even be having this conversation.''

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue. Believe me, it would be easy to vote with the majority on this issue. But the easiest decision, or the most popular one, is not always the right one.

In the words of James Fenimore Cooper, and I quote, ``It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.''

The beauty of our Constitution is that it protects the voice of the minority, so I ask you to join me in protecting that minority today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to take this time to recognize a tremendous and extremely valuable asset to public education in the United States that began in my city of San Diego in 1980. The Advancement Via Individual Determination, or AVID, program has helped hundreds of thousands of underachieving middle and high school students across the United States learn the study habits and the skills needed to get into college and graduate; and for many of them to be the first in their family to go to college and to graduate.

A teacher at Clairemont High School, Mary Catherine Swanson, created AVID because she wanted to find a way to help students tap their true potential and help them achieve academic success. The program emphasizes individual achievement, while teaching sound study skills and new study habits. AVID also encourages goal setting, and works to lift self-expectations and self-esteem in students so they can rise to the challenge.

Mary Catherine Swanson recently retired, and now is the perfect time to celebrate what she accomplished for education through the AVID program. While overseeing the program for 25 years, AVID went from one classroom in San Diego to over 2,300 middle and high schools in 36 States and 15 nations abroad. Nearly 260,000 students have benefited tremendously from its ground-breaking teaching methods, encouraging time management, sound study habits, self-confidence, and hard work.

These students enroll in the toughest classes, such as AP courses, and are given the support and resources to rise to the challenge through AVID. Amazingly, over 95 percent of those who complete the AVID program attend college, and 89 percent of these students return for their sophomore year.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to choose from the thousands of success stories produced by AVID. The program helped U.S. Olympic athlete Joanna Hayes earn the grades and develop the study habits needed to attend UCLA. Joanna then went on to win the Gold in the 100-Meter Hurdle event at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Greece, and she attributes her success in part to the discipline she learned from AVID.

Another great story is that of AVID student Truong-Son Vinh, who earned degrees in engineering and applied math from the University of California at San Diego after high school. Vinh came to the United States as a boy when his family fled Vietnam after it fell to the North in the 1970s, and he went on to apply his knowledge and skills working for NASA.

There are thousands of success stories. AVID students have gone on to earn advanced degrees in all key subjects and disciplines.

I want to thank Mary Catherine Swanson for having a vision and working hard to implement this vision beginning with one classroom and 32 students at Clairemont High. And I want to thank the teachers and the tutors for their dedication, and also recognize the students who had the courage to take on the rigorous academic track required by AVID, and who had the desire to go on one day and find success in college.

I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Castle, for his efforts on behalf of this resolution, and also I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and House leadership for bringing House Res. 576 to the floor today.

If we are to eliminate the achievement gap in the United States and remain competitive globally, I believe we need to build upon the programs that have proven success, encouraging and inspiring hard work in academics. AVID is clearly one of these programs, and I know it will continue its tradition of success in the years to come.

Finally, as we look at the No Child Left Behind reauthorization and how we can improve it, I believe it is more than worthwhile to look at programs such as AVID. AVID provides the strong and uniform training techniques to those who oversee it in schools across the Nation. It sets high standards for both its instructors and its students.

AVID is not about one community or one region, but a national push to encourage strong academic standards, and provides the accountability and support to back up those standards. It further gives the students the support they need both academically and socially to achieve in difficult classes.

I encourage my colleagues to support passage of this resolution today and encourage my colleagues to learn from this highly successful program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today along with my colleagues, Mr. Evans of Illinois and Ms. Herseth of South Dakota, on behalf of our veterans seeking to start and operate their own businesses.

I have been interested in this issue for a number of years after visiting with our servicemembers in Afghanistan. I recall one brave servicemember who told me his dream was to learn about entrepreneurship and start his own business after his tour of duty. So it is up to us to make sure our veterans have access to the training, assistance and capital to start a business.

Mr. Chairman, Congress passed legislation in 1999 establishing the National Veterans Business Development Corporation to provide all of these crucial aspects of entrepreneurship to veterans. As a result, the Veterans Corporation has provided training to over 8,000 veterans and has helped over 550 veterans start businesses during 2006 alone.

Charmaine Burnett is one of those thousands of success stories. She is a service-disabled veteran of the Gulf War living in California, and her construction services company has been awarded several contracts in recent months. She attributes her success in part to the assistance she received from the Veterans Corporation.

Unfortunately, at $500,000, H.R. 5672 does not provide sufficient funding for the Veterans Corporation to train and continue its services to veterans when they need it the most.

Mr. Chairman, why would we cut this funding to veterans when they need it most? The corporation will have to cut back and reduce services for veterans entrepreneurship when many of our servicemembers are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our amendment increases funding for the Veterans Corporation by a mere $1 million to match its level for fiscal year 2006. Our veterans need this funding.

This amendment is completely budget neutral. It does not increase spending and does not take away from other important programs within the SBA.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support business ownership for America's veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that acceptance, and I know that the veterans will as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation giving America's seniors a new opportunity to benefit from culturally competent multigenerational programs with our young people. Specifically, many older Americans have limited English proficiency and can face difficulties finding younger individuals with whom to communicate because of language barriers. In addition, multilingual young people can act as a valuable communication resource to help increase awareness for seniors on a range of issues.

I became aware of this issue recently while visiting a site for a supportive senior housing project in my district in San Diego. This supportive housing includes affordable housing for low-income seniors, nutrition services, social services, and mental healthcare. The program is in a culturally diverse neighborhood, and therefore, the people whom this program benefits come from a wide variety of backgrounds and speak many languages. The program staff wants to ensure that the seniors in the neighborhood are aware of the programs available to them, and feel comfortable coming to the senior center to receive those services.

But there are major language and cultural barriers to overcome. In this case, young people in the neighborhood, who speak English and another language, could go out into the community to help increase awareness about the programs, and help seniors navigate the programs-- the eligibility requirements, the enrollment process, and other vital information.

Mr. Speaker, not only is it important that we do what we can to give older Americans the opportunity to share their wisdom and experiences with younger generations, it is also important that we give young people the opportunity to work with and help seniors. We know about the joy our seniors experience from visiting with younger folks. We must ensure that all segments of our older population have this opportunity and multigenerational programs are an excellent way for seniors and young people to benefit from each other.

My legislation would amend the Older Americans Act, OAA, to encourage and facilitate regular interaction between seniors with limited English proficiency and students with multilingual skills across the United States. Now that we are on the verge of reauthorizing the OAA, I encourage my colleagues to support action to give all of our seniors the gift of multigenerational activities.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform have shouldered the enormous tasks we have asked of them; and they should be commended for it, especially considering the careless way this war was planned and conducted.

Our soldiers would never complain about the mistakes of their Commander in Chief. The military just does not work that way. We all know that. Without any second guessing, they will always do the jobs assigned to them.

But we are the Congress. It is our job to raise questions about how our troops are used and cared for. It is our job to identify and to look into mistakes that are made by the executive branch. It is our job to consider and learn from the lessons of Iraq. But what have we learned today? Recycling words and we are not fixing problems.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, just does not cut it. Our soldiers are doing their jobs. They have earned and deserve a Congress that does its job.