Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a tremendous and extremely valuable asset to public education in the United States.

I am referring to the Advancement Via Individual Determination or AVID program that began in my hometown of San Diego 25 years ago.

Since then, it has helped hundreds of thousands of underachieving students across the United States learn the study habits and the skills needed for college. It has also helped thousands of students excel in the core subjects of reading, math, and the sciences.

Mary Catherine Swanson, a school teacher at San Diego's Clairemont High, created AVID in 1980 because she wanted to find a way to help students with mediocre academic records.

What has happened since then is nothing short of amazing.

AVID has grown from one classroom to 2,200 middle and high schools in 36 states.

The program emphasizes individual achievement while teaching new study habits. In addition, AVID encourages goal setting and works to lift self-expectations and self-esteem in students.

Nearly 260,000 students have benefited tremendously from these ground-breaking teaching methods.

Amazingly, over 95 percent of those who complete the AVID program attend college and nearly all of these students return for their sophomore year.

It is difficult to choose from the thousands of success stories produced by AVID. I am inspired each time I hear one of these stories.

Please allow me to share just a few of these stories with you today.

Some of you may remember Joanna Hayes for winning Gold in the women's 100-meter hurdles during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Greece.

Joanna's teachers remember her for her drive and determination to achieve in her classes.

Earlier in high school, however, Joanna faced a problem. She was a promising student athlete and knew she could likely land an athletic scholarship at a number of schools around the nation.

Unfortunately, her grades were low and she did not possess the academic credentials to attend her dream school, UCLA.

Joanna's high school guidance counselor told her about the AVID program and how it had helped a number of students greatly improve their grades.

She signed up and her grades began to improve dramatically.

She attended UCLA and became a world-class athlete attributing a great deal of her success to AVID.

I was also moved by the story of Truong-Son Vinh who arrived in the United States when he was 9 years old.

He fled Saigon just before it fell into the hands of the North Vietnamese in 1975. Tragically, his father was killed during the war.

Truong-Son Vinh's family ended up in San Diego where he found the AVID program.

With the help of AVID, he maintained an ``A'' average and excelled in math and the sciences throughout high school.

He applied the skills and study habits he learned through AVID and earned degrees in mechanical engineering and applied math from the University of California at San Diego and a master's degree from Cal. Tech.

This was just the beginning for Truong-Son Vinh.

After college, he went to work for NASA and contributed to the Space Shuttle program during the 1980s.

He later returned to school and earned a Ph.D and an MBA.

Mr. Speaker, it is stories like Joanna Hayes and Truong-Son Vinh's that have inspired me to introduce a resolution recognizing AVID and honoring the program on its 25th anniversary.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this resolution with my friend and colleague from Delaware, Congressman Castle.

Because of AVID, thousands of students have had the opportunity to achieve in our public schools and have had the opportunity to go on to college.

Again, this program has far exceeded anyone's expectations.

I thank Mary Catherine Swanson for having a vision and working hard to implement this vision beginning with one classroom at Clairemont High.

In addition, please allow me to thank the administrators of the AVID program for their hard work promoting the program on a national level.

Also, the work the teachers and tutors do in the AVID program is nothing short of amazing. Because of their dedication, AVID has turned the lives around of thousands of our young people.

Finally, I would just like to take a moment to recognize the students who had the courage to take on the rigorous academic track required by AVID and who had the desire to one day go to college.

I introduce this resolution today to honor AVID and all it has accomplished.

If we are to eliminate the achievement gap in the United States, I believe we need to build upon the programs that have already decreased the size of the gap successfully.

AVID is clearly one of these programs.

We will also need to turn to AVID and other proven programs already showing success in assisting our kids make gains in the areas that our nation is lagging far behind. I refer specifically to math and the sciences.

If we are to be competitive in the world economy, we need programs such as AVID to help our children excel in math, the sciences, and other key programs.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican withdrawal resolution was drafted in haste.

No matter how you felt about getting into this war, our kids are there now. They're in the middle of harm's way, right now. As many thousands of families, friends and loved ones can tell you--they've been over there a long time.

I'm a member of the Armed Services Committee. I voted against going to war with Iraq without exhausting all our diplomatic efforts. But here we are. We didn't do that.

I've been to Iraq. I've sat through scores of hearings on Iraq. I've spoken to the Secretary of Defense. I've spoken with our military commanders. Like everyone here tonight, I've lost sleep over it. I've given it a lot of thought. I know my colleagues have too. I know that.

Let's calm down for a second. Let's look at the choice before us tonight.

On one hand, House Republican Duncan Hunter is asking us to withdraw our troops immediately without protection or support. On the other hand, the White House is asking us just to keep our troops on the same course.

I can't choose either of these options in good conscience. Honestly, I don't see how any of us can.

To put it simply, we have more options than ``all or nothing'' here tonight.

We should be looking for the ``better course'' not the ``same course.''

There is no military solution to Iraq. We've got to look to diplomacy and joint civilian-military efforts. This war has demonstrated the need for trained civilian professionals who can provide continuity and hand- in-glove partnerships with Iraqi citizens.

Everywhere I've gone and everyone I've talked to has cited the need for this.

It was obvious early on that the future of Iraq depends on Iraqis. And yet, the administration is only now beginning to place an emphasis on training Iraq's own security forces.

James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly wrote recently, ``an orderly exit from Iraq depends on the development of a viable Iraqi security force. But the Iraqis aren't even close. The Bush administration doesn't take the problem seriously--and it never has.''

We have other options besides this draconian resolution. It's too bad we're not able to have hearings on those. It's too bad we're not able to consider these other options tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Child Medication Safety Act in the 108th Congress and I rise today to oppose it once again on the same grounds.

It is a solution without a problem. The bill is based on the assumption that a substantial number of educators require students to take medication in order to attend school.

I opposed it previously after the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on the bill. At that time, not one witness could produce statistical evidence that this was a nationwide problem and that students were prevented from attending school over medication.

I still believe passing this legislation is an irresponsible rush to legislative judgment without all the facts. We should not pass legislation over anecdotes and isolated incidents, and I have yet to see evidence that this legislation is necessary.

Today, we vote on H.R. 1790 without even holding a hearing to determine why this bill is needed and to look at any new evidence.

I will not argue that there may be cases when a teacher unfairly or unjustly asks that a student take medication for behavioral concerns.

But H.R. 1790 assumes teachers across the nation are requiring students to take medication. Please, let us be clear, teachers educate. They do not medicate; physicians must prescribe medication.

This legislation is based largely on false assumptions.

Let us consider the impact of this bill in the classroom. If a child is having trouble seeing the blackboard, the teacher must advise the parent to seek professional help.

The same is true if a child has behavioral problems or mental health issues. Teachers can make recommendations that may help the student learn.

Again, I have yet to see statistical evidence that teachers are preventing students from attending school because they refusing to take medication.

Mr. Speaker, until I see hard evidence that this issue is a problem for our students and schools, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month, which commemorates the numerous contributions that Latinos make to our country.

I am proud, honored and privileged to represent California's 53rd District in Congress. The district's rich diversity embodies the vibrant cultural fabric of our country.

During this month of celebration, I would like to recognize the efforts of some ordinary individuals who are doing extraordinary things in San Diego.

Gus Chavez

For thirty years, Gus Chavez helped make the dream of a college degree possible for countless students. Chavez is widely recognized as the heart and soul of the Education Opportunity Program (EOP) at San Diego State University. He transformed a pilot program to attract low- income students into one of the most successful programs in the state's history.

Chavez turned the department into a comprehensive admissions outreach and retention program. He expanded services to include pre-collegiate recruiting and pre-admission advising, academic orientation, tutoring, skills development and test preparation, summer bridge programs for freshmen and transfer students, career counseling and grants.

At his retirement words like ``activist'' ``leader'' ``mentor'' and ``advocate'', easily rolled off tongues. Indeed, many alumni cite Chavez as the person who had the most impact on their educations.

Alberto R. Cortes

For nearly 18 years, Alberto Cortes has been dedicated to educating people of color about HIV and AIDS. He has worked as a bilingual information specialist and health educator for the San Diego AIDS Project and volunteered for the San Diego AIDS Information Line. Cortes has also been active with the Council of Community Clinics where he helped build HIV awareness and counseled individuals.

Presently, Cortes serves as executive director of Mama's Kitchen, a nonprofit organization that prepares and delivers food to people affected by AIDS. Last year, Mama's Kitchen provided more than 316,000 meals to community members in need.

This year, Cortes was one of five San Diegans honored as a local hero as part of the Union Bank of California and KPBS Hispanic Heritage Month Local Heroes Awards. Awardees are chosen for demonstrating a high level of commitment and community participation.

Jose Mondragon

While some high school students view summer vacation as a time to relax, this 17-year-old used it to coordinate a community meeting with city council members.

Working with Barrios Unidos Hoy Organizados (BUHO), Mondragon was a key organizer for a public meeting that brought together 300 community residents to address issues of concern such as affordable housing and adequate street lighting. Those who worked with him on the community meeting describe Mondragon as ``a true role model.''

Mondragon is currently Commissioner of Community Service for the Associated Student Body at San Diego High School. Despite all of his extracurricular activities, Jose has maintained a 3.81 GPA and hopes to attend Stanford University after high school.

I hope you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues will join me in honoring these extraordinary individuals and their accomplishments for the Latino community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the end of a distinguished career and yet the beginning of new ad ventures and horizons.

This week my legislative counsel Donna Smith is retiring from my congressional office, ending an extensive and dedicated career of public service.

For the past 5 years in Washington, Donna has handled what she referred to as the three Es: education, energy, and the environment, as well as many other issues.

Donna is a California native born in Los Angeles. Her family soon relocated to San Diego. And what would be L.A.'s loss became San Diego's gain.

She graduated from Pomona College and received a teaching credential from UC Berkeley and began an 18-year teaching career. She instructed students in English, social studies, journalism, and history. She taught at the San Diego Unified School District and served as the junior high school principal and teacher for the San Diego Jewish Academy. During these years of mentoring and teaching, Donna was also active in the community and began her interest in public policy and politics.

Our association together began as members of the League of Women Voters where she served as the League's vice president from 1973 to 1977.

She helped introduce me to the issues I came to embrace and to the invaluable discourse of pro-con discussions for which the League is well known. At the same time, we were all building long-lasting relationships.

In 1992, Donna was appointed by San Diego Mayor Maureen O'Connor as a member of the San Diego City Council Elections, Campaign, and Government Advisory Board. And as a member of the board, she was instrumental in formulating a proposal for a San Diego ethics commission.

Donna holds a myriad of other interests beyond creating sound public policy. She loves music; travel; the arts;

and, of course, spending time with her three grandchildren. And when most of us are content cruising through life with our careers and family, Donna's love of learning and public policy motivated her to get her legal degree from UCLA in 1996.

Before I came to Congress, Donna served as my chief of staff in my final two terms as a member of the California State Assembly. Any chief of staff who oversees a district and legislative office knows that job has its rewards, but also many challenges. As I transitioned to Congress, Donna came east to Washington to fulfill a long-time goal of developing public policy, a job she is well suited for. She has an ability to put her arms around an issue and see all sides of it. Instead of sound bites, Donna is always able to see the whole picture.

She has been so much more than a trusted adviser on the issues. She has been a partner in crafting legislation on teacher quality, improving curriculum, promoting renewable energy, protecting open spaces in San Diego, and negotiating the complex issues of the 2000 electricity crisis in San Diego.

In the midst of immersing herself in politics and policy, Donna has also immersed herself in the cultural and artistic endeavors that Washington has to offer, as she did in San Diego.

She is not only a multitasker, but a multi-talented renaissance woman. From playing her cello, to singing in the choir at the National Cathedral, to traveling to such exotic locales as Egypt, New Zealand and India, it can certainly be said that Donna has not let life pass her by.

Many of us in Congress know that a good staff is the key component to our ability to create public policy, and Donna has been such a vital asset to my office and to my successes as a public servant. Donna has been more than an invaluable member of the staff; she has been a good and loyal friend.

She not only will be missed in our office. I am sure she will go on and be envied by all of us. As we are all heading off to work next week, Donna will continue to travel, to sing, to play and taste the flavors life has to offer. And in the middle of all that, she will find and give great joy as the consummate grandparent. And knowing Donna, she will be an active player in making our country and the world a better place to live.

I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the years of hard work and public service that Donna Smith has provided to San Diego, to California, to the Congress, and to our Nation.

Thank you, Donna.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), who worked so diligently with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), ranking member, and the subcommittee members to create a bipartisan bill. This is the spirit in which I believe Congress ought to work and find compromises and avoid extremes.

But, regrettably, I am going to have to oppose the Boustany amendment to strike the language which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring. This issue was vigorously debated in our subcommittee and committee and was not included in the bill.

When our taxes are used to hire people, should the decision be based on whether that person is a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, a Mormon, a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Jew? Supreme Court decisions have clearly stated that religious institutions have a legitimate interest in choosing employees by their religion. But these cases are about jobs that are privately funded.

Head Start, as we know, is publicly funded. Employers in government- funded programs should not be able to do what government employers may not do. Religious education programs run by a mosque, a church, or synagogue are pervasively religious, and discrimination in hiring is appropriate to carry out the religious content.

But a program in the same building which is a contract for a Head Start program is not about religion, and discrimination in hiring for jobs paid with Federal tax dollars is wrong.

One of the strengths of Head Start has been encouraging parents to volunteer; and tens of thousands of parents, as we know, have gone on to develop skills to become a paid aide or teacher.

One of my colleagues mentioned that he is very supportive of the bill, which helps and supports military families, and I fully agree with that. But then imagine that a child whose parent is fired from working at her school because their religion is different from the contractor's, perhaps a military family is fired because they are Roman Catholic, not Baptist, Muslim, or a Methodist. What would that teach these children about our country's commitment to freedom, the very freedom that their parents fight for? That religious discrimination is okay. That I cannot support, Mr. Chairman, and I hope Members will oppose that kind of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers go out to the people of the Gulf Coast and their loved ones who have been so profoundly affected by Hurricane Katrina. My deepest gratitude goes out to all those engaged in relief efforts.

Our nation is grieving. The images and stories broadcast from flooded streets and makeshift shelters will be forever engraved in our minds and hearts. Hurricane Katrina has collectively wounded us. But, out of this anguish, an intense commitment has emerged--to stand alongside the brave survivors during this time of recovery.

While Katrina' s historic rampage of the Gulf Coast can be measured in hours, recovery will likely be recorded in terms of years and billions of dollars. Last week, Congress provided a ``down payment'' of $10.5 billion. We are here today to approve a $51.8 billion disaster relief package to aid further recovery efforts. All support--given recent events--carry grave concerns about how money will flow to those suffering from this natural and man-made disaster.

Like many, I am alarmed over apparent delays, and lack of communication and coordination. But, these frustrations cannot distract us from the work ahead of us. Our priorities are clear: Focus on Katrina's survivors, first.

Many of the survivors have lost loved ones, are homeless, and face the terrifying prospect of starting their lives over. Nevertheless, they have demonstrated a remarkable resiliency in a desire to move forward and need support to do so.

Families have been separated, and must be reunited.

The injured and sick need care and treatment, including a wide array of mental health services.

My office has been in direct contact with local disaster response officials to ensure that San Diego's available resources are aiding those suffering in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Members of San Diego's Urban Search-and-Rescue Taskforce have left for the Gulf Coast to provide assistance, as well as a variety of first responders and military personnel.

After we have seen to the needs of those hurt by Katrina, let's look at the broader picture. There must be a thorough and independent review of the response effort in the coming days. We need to answer the serious questions and concerns Hurricane Katrina raised about emergency planning. Namely, we need to address the care and evacuation for the vulnerable in our communities when emergencies arise.

On a personal note--based on my volunteer experience with the Red Cross after Katrina's landfall--we need to develop an efficient

method of tracking missing family members and reuniting them with their loved ones. I spoke to people who were desperate to learn the whereabouts of their loved ones. The pain in their voices was evident and made worse by the scarcity of available information. A number of websites, registries and other electronic bulletins have sprung up in response. CNN and other cable channels have taken on this challenge. Children are going before the cameras seeking relatives. What is the federal responsibility to ensure a comprehensive emergency database for such catastrophes?

We need to reevaluate existing emergency management practices and policies. What are the skill sets needed to assure those in charge are able to properly and aggressively manage a widespread emergency? How much can we realistically rely on the military? Can and should those capabilities be developed to a greater extent in the civilian population? Do we overextend and over depend on local responders who-- by virtue of being personally affected by a cataclysmic event--are unable to provide their talents when needed?

We can, we must, and we will do everything possible to make sure our lack of preparedness and slow response to this catastrophic on-going tragedy never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale, a true American patriot and a great military veteran. Vice Admiral Stockdale passed away on July 5, 2005 at the age of 81 after a life of public service and sacrifice. He is survived by his beloved wife Mrs. Sybil B. Stockdale of Coronado, Calif., and his four sons.

I believe Gordon R. England, the Secretary of the Navy, eloquently described the legacy Mr. Stockdale has left behind: ``Admiral Stockdale's courage and life stand as timeless examples of the power of faith and the strength of the human spirit.''

I could not agree more and would like to share a few details of his extraordinary life. Vice Admiral Stockdale was born on Dec 23, 1923 in Abingdon, Ill. At the age of 24 he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in the Class of 1947 and began his unmatched naval career. Among his many distinctions, Vice Admiral Stockdale is remembered for his remarkable leadership as the senior naval officer held in captivity during the Vietnam War.

On September 9, 1965, after flying more than 200 missions over Vietnam, he ejected over a small village after his plane was struck by anti-aircraft fire. He broke his left knee during the landing and it was broken a second time during his captivity.

During his 7\1/2\ year imprisonment, Vice Admiral Stockdale was tortured numerous times, was forced to wear heavy leg irons for over two years and spent four years in solitary confinement.

But his spirit and determination to survive never wavered. Despite the torture and abuse, he refused to participate in enemy propaganda films. Vice Admiral Stockdale's extraordinary heroism became widely known when he was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1976, only three years after his release.

His 26 combat awards included two Distinguished Flying Crosses, the Distinguished Service Medals, two Purple Hearts and four Silver Stars. He is a member of the Navy's Carrier Hall of Fame, the National Aviation Hall of Fame and an Honorary Fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. Stockdale received several honorary doctoral degrees.

He is the highest-ranking naval officer to wear both aviator wings and the Medal of Honor. His other accomplishments include earning a master's degree from Stanford University and serving at the prestigious institution's Hoover Institute for 15 years. He was also President of the Citadel for two years.

In 1992, he was a candidate for Vice President of the United States winning nearly 20 percent of the popular vote.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce this resolution today to recognize the great sacrifices Vice Admiral made protecting the freedoms of the United States and to recognize his commitment to public service. I would also like to extend my deepest sympathies to the family Mr. Stockdale left behind, including his wife and four sons.

His life serves as an inspiration to the many servicemen and women protecting our country at home and abroad. Vice Admiral Stockdale was admired and respected for his courage and unfaltering determination.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have been saying all along that the recently introduced Social Security GROW Act does not address the future solvency of Social Security, that it will cut guaranteed Social Security benefits, and that it continues the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund, despite what its sponsors say.

Well, you do not have to take our word for it. Even my friends on the other side of the aisle have begun to publicly question their party's plan. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said in USA Today that ``you must eat your spinach before having dessert, and this plan only offers dessert: the personal retirement accounts.'' Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said in the L.A. Times that he was ``disappointed that the new House Republican bill did not address Social Security's impending insolvency.'' And the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) said to Bloomberg News, ``I do not support legislation that takes tax dollars and diverts them to private accounts.''

This legislation is not the way to preserve Social Security. As we prepare to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Social Security, we should be straightening it rather than jeopardizing our citizens' hard-earned retirement savings.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where the gentleman is trying to go with this, but even the White House does not want to have this scored neutrally under CBO numbers. They have asked for the Office of Management and Budget numbers because the Congressional Budget Office ends up counting rate increases that have not taken effect as already being part of revenue. And to the extent that we can stave off stamp tax rate increases, what the gentleman's amendment would do, not stave it off but it includes it, to the extent we do that, then it counts against the budget.

The other problem in terms of budget neutrality comes from the President's own commission on the Postal Service which recommended that the military years of service for postal employees under the CSRS retirement program, that those years be paid for by the military like they are for every other agency of government instead of having postal patrons for that. This was the President's commission which recommended that.

What I have talked about, we save money, not take money away. But the question is why should rate payers have to pay for military service in an agency where you have veterans hiring preference? It is not fair to rate payers. It is driving up rates.

Finally, let me say, it is not two-thirds of the escrow funds that is funding health care. Ninety percent of the escrow funds over the next 5 years are to fund health care. That is more than any other agency in government. Not enough for some Members, I am sure; but this is the appropriate way in my opinion for the post office to operate.

We have committed to the White House. We are going to work to try to get this as budget neutral as we can as we move forward to the conference working with OMB, but the Congressional Budget Office's arcane scoring rules make it virtually impossible to get here in this particular case.

Once again, let me remind everyone, what is the alternative? The alternative to this legislation is rate increases, postal rate increases, a stamp act, on every man, woman and child that mails a letter in this country. That is what we are trying to stave off, because as rate increases go up, people quit using the post office; and it gets this downward spiral that will lead to the demise of the post office as we know it. That is why this legislation has such broad support from such diverse groups in the private sector and in the public sector.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just note for the record that we did agree at that point as a condition of releasing overpayment by the Post Office Department into pension funds that they, for a temporary period of time, fund the military for CSRS retirees. But we awaited studies; and the President's own commission, which has been quoted here, came back and recommended that in point of fact the post office should not be making these payments, that it should to go to the general fund side of the ledger.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Speaker, with the support of my colleagues, Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. John Dingell, I rise today to introduce the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act of 2005.

This legislation presents a balanced and reasonable approach to improving the safety of dietary supplements while making sure that consumers continue to have access to them.

According to a report by the National Center for Health Statistics released last year, approximately 62% of adults use some form of alternative therapy, including herbal remedies and dietary supplements. Dietary supplement sales in the U.S. alone are $19.8 billion. This popularity, however, alarms consumer health advocates. Current law does not require dietary supplements to prove their efficacy or safety, leaving consumers vulnerable to unexpected side-effects and other health risks.

The dilemma we face today is due to Congressional action in the early 1990s. In 1994, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). Cited as the greatest removal of FDA jurisdiction in the history of the agency, this legislation deregulated the supplement industry. Instead of requiring manufacturers to prove that their products are safe, DSHEA required that FDA prove that the products are unsafe before it can take action against a potentially deadly product. Furthermore, under this law, manufacturers are not required to inform the FDA of any reported health problems associated with supplement use.

This means consumers and regulators may not have access to information regarding the side effects of these products. Former FDA director David Kessler wrote about DSHEA in the New England Journal of Medicine, explaining ``Congress has put the FDA in the position of being able to act only after the fact and after substantial harm has already occurred.''

The story of ephedra, a product that was pulled from the market only after thousands of reports of serious injuries including heart attack, stroke, and death, demonstrates that FDA does not have adequate authority to protect the public from unsafe supplements. In 2004, only after eight long years, and a Herculean effort to amass a mountain of evidence, the FDA banned the sale of ephedra products.

This past April, a ruling by a federal judge in Utah called into question the ban on ephedra citing insufficient evidence and the lack of authority to ban it without such proof. This ruling, made almost exactly one year after the FDA ban on ephedra, underscores the present difficulty with regulating dietary supplements.

Today with Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. John Dingell, I am proud to introduce the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act. This bill will address the gaps created by DSHEA through greater information exchange and accountability.

Our legislation contains commonsense provisions requiring dietary supplement manufacturers to provide the FDA with a list of their products and reports of all serious adverse events. These actions will alert the FDA to problematic dietary supplements and will give the FDA access to information it needs to take action more swiftly. If the FDA determines that a specific supplement may have serious health consequences, it can require the manufacturer to do a post-market surveillance study to ensure that the product is safe.

Our legislation engages manufacturers in determining the safety of dietary supplements. By providing their studies and other related data, manufacturers and the FDA would come together to make a comprehensive and fair decision for American consumers. It also clarifies the standard the FDA must meet in determining whether a dietary supplement poses an unreasonable risk to consumers. This bill allows the FDA to use data from clinical trials, adverse event reports and other relevant scientific information to reach an informed decision.

Our legislation gives the FDA the authority to prohibit sales of dietary supplements that may pose significant risk to minors. Many young athletes emulate the practices of their professional sport heroes, yet their developing bodies are much more susceptible to the effects of stimulants and steroid-like products such as ``andro.''

According to Bruce Silverglade from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, ``the challenge for most consumers is to determine which supplements are beneficial and which are nothing more than 21st- century snake oil-or even dangerous.'' That is why this legislation includes authorization of funds for physician and consumer education programs regarding adverse reactions.

Certainly, there are dietary supplements that offer benefits. Folic acid intake by women, for example, has been shown to reduce birth defects in unborn children and we are all familiar with the benefits of taking vitamin C and monitoring adequate calcium intake. Despite claims to the contrary, the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act will not take away vitamins and minerals from consumers. In fact, my colleagues and I included language to specifically exempt them from this legislation. This provision should alleviate worries about the Codex Alimentarius and its guidelines for vitamin and minerals.

The FDA has its hands tied behind its back. Limited funding and manpower has left the FDA overextended and diluted its efforts to protect the public. The measures and education programs in this legislation will enable the FDA to gather solid data about the dangers some dietary supplements pose. With this information in hand, the FDA can make sensible, informed decisions and policies about dietary supplements. Consumers can have greater assurance than they currently do about the safety of the products on the market. We cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and let this serious public health threat go unchecked. The health and well being of our young people and loved ones are at risk.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are scrambling around to make up for a shortfall in veterans funding that was caused by the poor planning of this administration. The VA medical system cares for the brave men and women who have risked life and limb to serve this country without questioning why. Let us not forget that the VA's medical system serves as a back up to the Defense Department during national emergencies and as a Federal support organization during major disasters.

Please consider my district, the city of San Diego. Our VA Medical Center is well managed, but is being forced to divert millions of its maintenance funds to partially cover its operating expenses while our communities' veterans sit on waiting lists of over 750 patients.

Mr. Speaker, we are the keepers of the promise to America's veterans. We are obligated to address this funding crisis quickly and prevent it from happening again. The lives of countless men and women who defend it, or our own lives, may very well depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an important issue facing our community: the affordability of long-term care. People today are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average life expectancy was 23. In the United States today, life expectancy is 83 years.

While this increased life expectancy is allowing us to live fuller lives, it is also presenting us with serious financial challenges. It is estimated that more than 40 percent of those who turn 65 will spend some time in a nursing home. Long-term care is expensive. On average, a year's nursing home charges can range from $60,000 to $70,000.

My own family had to make difficult emotional and financial decisions when my father needed care. My dad was a pediatrician, and always lived a full life. When he needed care, my sisters and I struggled to find the perfect place for him to live.

We wanted to make sure he was happy and received high quality medical care. We searched for months to find the right place for our dad and we learned very quickly how expensive long-term care is.

My experience with my dad renewed my commitment to improve our long- term care system. I took on this mission in Congress and I am pleased today to reintroduce the Long Term Care Support and Incentive Act. This much needed legislation will make a real difference for San Diegans caring for older family members.

First, the bill will give a $4,000 tax credit for seniors with long- term care needs and their caregivers. We know how many sacrifices families make to take care of their loved ones. They miss work, or in some cases are forced to give up their jobs. They pay for expensive medical supplies and equipment, and bare the burden of enormous medical bills. This tax credit will help ease their financial burden.

The second section of my legislation will establish a tax deduction for long-term care insurance premiums. As the long-term care needs in our community increase, we must face the reality that many seniors do not have family or friends to take care of them full time.

This is particularly important to women. Women live longer than men. Often times, women are the primary caregivers for their husbands. After their husbands pass away, there is often no one around to take care of them.

Long-Term Care Insurance can help fill this gap, but premiums can be expensive. My legislation will make long-term care insurance more affordable by allowing individuals over 65 to deduct 75 percent of the cost of their premiums and individuals under 65 to deduct 50 percent of the cost of their premiums.

In addition, I have included several important consumer protections in the bill to ensure that people are purchasing responsible insurance plans that will adequately meet their long-term care needs.

The bill requires plans to include: Mandatory Inflation Protection, A Lifetime Deductible Requirement that ensures policy holders must only pay their deductible one time in their lifetime, Mandatory Interchangeablity so that individuals can determine where their benefits are spent, A Care Coordination program that ensures seniors receive assistance in planning and securing the services they need.

By encouraging people to plan ahead for the future and purchase Long- Term Care Insurance, we can ensure that seniors live dignified and independent lives. I urge all of my colleagues in Congress to work with me to pass it quickly into law.

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

I believe women should not need a permission slip to receive ob-gyn care. Unfortunately, that is the reality faced by many women when they need to see their doctor. Numerous managed care plans require women to visit their primary care physicians before seeking the health care services they need from the providers they want. Denying direct access, or forcing women to jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops to see their ob-gyn is not acceptable treatment.

The WOMAN Act recognizes women have different medical needs than men and the significant role ob-gyns play in women's health. Women who see an ob-gyn on a regular basis are more likely to receive important screening services such as pelvic exams, as well as counseling on critical reproductive health issues. My legislation removes the barriers complicating women's access to their doctors. Women will no longer have to contend with the gatekeeper system that can prevent or delay appropriate care.

It is easy to understand what a difference direct ob-gyn access makes in women's health care. Imagine, for a moment, a woman in San

Diego who works 45 hours a week and has limited sick and vacation time. Now, imagine she has an urgent medical problem requiring an ob-gyn visit. On Monday, she calls from work to make an appointment with her primary care physician. If she is lucky, she gets an appointment for the following morning. She takes time off Tuesday to go see her doctor. Her primary care doctor agrees she should be seen by her ob-gyn and gives her a referral. Tuesday afternoon she returns to work and calls her ob-gyn for an appointment. The doctor is in surgery on Wednesday, but they offer her an appointment on Friday morning. On Friday she takes another morning off from work and finally, after almost a week, gets the care she needs. The unnecessary referral process resulted in her taking an extra morning off work and delayed her proper medical care by 5 days. The patient, employer, primary care physician, and health plan provider would have saved money and time if the patient had been able to go directly to her ob-gyn.

The public overwhelmingly supports direct access to ob-gyn care. A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University found that 82 percent support direct access legislation and 63 percent would support it even if their health insurance costs increased.

While serving in the California State Assembly, I heard from many women who experienced the same problems I have outlined today. After meeting with women, obstetricians and gynecologists, health plan representatives, and providers in the State of California, I wrote the state law allowing women direct access to their ob-gyn. That law was a good first step; however, it still does not cover women enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. This means that even if a woman lives in a state with direct access protections, like California, she may not be able to see her ob-gyn without a referral if she is covered by a federally regulated ERISA health plan.

I believe the time has come to make direct access to an ob-gyn a national standard.

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