Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Military Pay Compatibility Act of 2003. Joining me is my dear friend and colleague Representative Ike Skelton, the ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a man of great wisdom and preeminence with respect to all things military and I appreciate his guidance and support.

In short, this legislation will ensure that military pay raises keep pace with civilian pay growth.

Please allow me to explain why this is important. Military pay tables were overhauled in 1971, with the advent of the all-volunteer force, and basic pay was set to provide reasonable pay comparability with private sector pay for civilian workers with similar skills, education and experience.

But military raises were capped for budgetary reasons during the 1970's, and serious retention and readiness shortfalls followed. These problems were addressed with double-digit raises in 1981 and 1982, after which it was generally acknowledged that military pay was reasonably comparable with private sector pay.

Despite this hard-learned lesson, the extended retention rebound of the 1980's, coupled with rising budget deficits, led multiple Administrations and Congress to continue capping military raises below private sector pay growth in 12 of the next 16 years.

In 1999, the cumulative military pay raise shortfall since 1982 had reached 13.5 percent--predictably accompanied by a new retention and readiness crisis.

Congress responded by enacting provisions in the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act specifying that, for years 2000 through 2006, each year's military pay raise is to exceed the civilian pay growth, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost

Index, or ECI, by \1/2\ percent per year. The 2001, 2002 and 2003 pay raises actually exceeded this standard and cut the gap from 13.5 percent to 6.4 percent.

In May 2002, the Department of Defense released its Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), which acknowledged that current pay structure lags considerably behind pay for civilians of comparable age and education. And, the Department of Defense has been supportive of increased raises to restore a new comparability standard.

In summary, the capping of military pay raises below private sector pay growth for extended periods during the past 30 years has led to significant retention problems among second-term and career members of the Armed Forces.

Such retention problems cost the United States more in terms of lost military experience, decreased readiness, and increased training costs than maintaining the principle of pay comparability.

The remaining so-called pay comparability gap should be eliminated as quickly as possible, and military pay increases must sustain full comparability with increases in the Employment Cost Index.

My bill would ensure that military pay raises never again lag civilian pay raises. Existing authority to close the pay gap expires in 2006. This legislation adds to that authority by specifying that military pay raises must be at least at the level of civilian wage growth beginning in 2007.

I have been asked if I am doing this because of our troops returning from the Middle East and the war in Iraq. The answer is no and yes. No because this legislation builds on the legislation I offered in the 107th Congress and addresses the same problem of the pay gap with a different approach. This issue is not new to me.

The answer is also yes because I can think of no better way to show continued support for our troops than to send them a clear signal that the Congress and the nation value their service and sacrifice, both today and in the future.

This measure has the full endorsement of the Fleet Reserve Association and the Military Coalition, and I have attached their letter of endorsement.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work to ensure its quick passage. Nearly identical legislation was introduced in the Senate yesterday. Working together with our Senate colleagues, I urge my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee to include this legislation as a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

The Military Coalition,

Alexandria, VA, April 30, 2003.

Hon. Susan A. Davis,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Davis: The Military Coalition (TMC), a

consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and

veterans' organizations representing more than five and one

half million current and former members of the seven

uniformed services, plus their families and survivors,

strongly supports legislation you are preparing to introduce

that would amend title 37, United States Code, concerning

future military pay raises and their comparison with private

sector pay growth. Under the provisions of your proposal,

increases in pay for members of the uniformed services would

match the growth in the Employment Cost Index (ECI).

This is a priority issue, and the Coalition strongly

supports the introduction of such legislation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) already recommended that future

military pay raises be based on the Consumer Price Index

(CPI). If that were adopted, military personnel would not

receive comparable pay increases with those in the private

sector, thus halting progress in closing the pay gap between

military and civilian pay levels. In addition, the

Administrations budget request would cap FY2004 pay increases

for NOAA and PHS personnel at the CPI level.

The ECI measures private-sector wage increases, while the

CPI is an inflation gauge to preserve the purchasing power of

retired pay, veterans' benefits and other programs. Retaining

the ECI will ensure that pay increases for all seven of the

uniformed services mirror those in the civilian economy. This

is important to maintaining adequate recruiting and retention

within the services and subsequently to our Nation's military

readiness.

The Coalition appreciates your leadership on this issue and

will work toward the enactment of this legislation into law.

Sincerely,

The Military Coalition.

Mr. Chairman, today Ms. Woolsey, as my designee, offered a very simple amendment to H.R. 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It does not change the law or the educational or related services that have long been provided in this act to each child with a disability--a free appropriate public education.

The language is simply designed to assure that when parents and teachers sit down at the table to craft an educational program appropriate for an individual child with a disability, everyone is on the same page about the goal.

The 18 words added to the definition are taken directly from an existing Supreme Court decision, Rowley, which provided controlling language on this issue. However, since most of us do not spend our time reading Supreme Court opinions, this places the language into the definition within the law, where it will be easily found. They are words that all of us can understand.

I want to share them with you. The phrase now reads that a ``free appropriate public education means special education and related services that'' are: Free--provided at public expense, under public supervision and without charge; meet the standards of the State education agency; and include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved. This amendment adds to that sentence the definition ``reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to enable the child with a disability to access the general curriculum.''

Educators of special-needs children who requested placement of these words in the law believe it will help them work with parents as part of the child's Individual Education Program teams to be able to test their proposals against a clear standard. It gives parents a tool to assure that school districts are not dumbing down the goals of education for their children as happened too often in the past. It enables all parties to look at the promise and make sure the child''s needs are served.

In response to questions from some Members, I would point out that this does not in any way change the results of that individual program as to whether the child is mainstreamed or not--only that the goal of the child's education is to access the curriculum content offered to all students.

During the long period of time during which the Education Committee members have been struggling with making this reauthorization of IDEA a better bill, there have been some key themes. Funding is, of course, one, including helping local school districts recover costs for non- educational expenses. Some of these issues need continued work as this bill moves ultimately to conference.

However, another theme has been reducing conflict which leads to expensive litigation over choosing the program that will best help the special needs student. I believe that this simple placement of existing language into the context of the definition will help achieve this goal of reducing conflict in providing an appropriate education to each child.

I urge your support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address for a moment the issue of accountability within the special education system.

I know when I was a board member in San Diego, I would hear repeatedly about how difficult it was in many cases to keep up without accountability. Yet we know that it is important.

I am pleased that during our discussion on this bill, that we talked about the need to reduce the paperwork and to find ways that we would be accountable, and yet we would make it reasonable and easier for our schools to respond and to address the needs of our children. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for that work within the committee.

But please, we need to be careful that we not give up accountability when we suggest that any school would be able to deal with those issues. The people who work with special education in our communities and in our public school systems, they have been doing this for a long time.

They understand the importance of it and they make sure that it works for our children. I cannot imagine what it would be like to throw that open to a tuition system or a voucher system that really had little understanding of that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

Mr. Chairman, the Loretta Sanchez amendment would include language in the bill that would authorize the use of funds to develop and improve programs to train school safety personnel and first responders who work at educational facilities in the recognition of autism spectrum disorders.

The goal of the amendment is to train school safety personnel and other first responders to respond appropriately to persons exhibiting behaviors and/or characteristics of developmental disabilities and/or mental illness. We are not asking for additional funds in this amendment, but rather to use those funds that have been designated for this particular purpose.

Mr. Chairman, many years ago, back in the 1960s, I actually worked with autistic children and their families; and I worked with them in an institutionalized arena. I always marvel today that many of those children who I knew in these hospitals in California are now in our public school system. We have many children who years ago could not benefit from the many advantages of our public school system, but they are doing that today.

From time to time, unfortunately, they may display behaviors that people do not understand very well. We have tremendous medicines today, but now and then children either do not get those medications or for one reason or another they are not being as effective as they could be. What we need to be certain of is that people who are in the community can observe these children, can respond to them effectively, can work with bystanders as well who may in fact be troubled by their behaviors.

It is very important that if we have this funding mechanism available, that we utilize it to the best benefit of our children. I am very pleased that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) has brought this amendment forward. I think it will be of immeasurable benefit. We need to be certain that the kind of aggressive or self- injurious behavior that sometimes is present in these children is dealt with appropriately.

Let us pass this amendment, understand its implications and its benefits, and be certain that children who suffer from autism, and there are many of them today in our country, autism affects nearly 1.5 million people, that these children have people who understand their behaviors, can respond to them, can help them and can help those around them in the school system, associates, friends, neighbors, to better deal with their problem as well.

We have seen that where we have trained our first responders, even in domestic violence, whatever it may be, to deal on the spot with the situation as they see fit, that we have all benefited. I cannot think of any better way to use these funds but in this way, and I am delighted that my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), is here to speak further about this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to simply say that I appreciate the opportunity to have addressed this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time in order to speak further about the need for this important amendment.

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

I rise in support of this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for introducing House Resolution 204.

We all know that parent choice is important. It is important within the public school systems of our country, and I have long supported, and my children attended, magnet schools that resulted as a part from the integration decisions of the 1970's. We have many successful examples, and from my home district of San Diego, Gompers Secondary School of Science and Math, and the School of Creative and Performing Arts are examples of standout schools and special interest schools. The magnet school movement has led to the charter school movement, and the difference that we see, however, is in governance and in meeting numerous guidelines.

In 1992, California was the second State to adopt provisions that allowed school districts to authorize charter schools. San Diego Unified School District has been a strong supporter of these developing schools. Some 14 have been approved with varied missions. Important to the success of these charter schools are a number of factors. High among them is parent involvement, a clear philosophy of education that seeks to meet the State and local standards. A committed core of well- qualified teachers and above all also community support from a board of directors, the expertise of retired educators, health professionals, financial experts. All of them have been involved in many of our charter schools. What we also find as so important is that those charter schools feed back to other schools the most successful innovations that they have begun.

One unique charter school that I would like to share today is that of the Preuss School in San Diego. It was established in the fall of 1999 on the campus of the University of California San Diego. Its mission, to provide an intensive college preparatory curriculum to low-income student populations and to improve educational practices, grade 6 through 12. Its goal of which they are meeting and beginning to really show very, very strong record, is to graduate students competitively eligible to enter the University of California and other selective institutions. They will have their first graduating class in 2004 and 2005, and we look forward to that.

I wanted to share a little bit about the student body and how the students come together for that program. All the students come from low-income families. None who enter may have had a parent or guardian who graduated from a 4-year college. Race in this school is certainly not a factor in admissions. It is true only 13 percent are Caucasian, and the Hispanic student population is about 54 percent.

One of the obstacles often in charter schools is traveling to the campus. All the students who go there must find their way there, and for some it is a very long distance. The student body president who travels from Imperial Beach takes the trolly to San Diego and transfers to a school bus; it takes him about an hour and a half to travel each way, a route ordinarily that would take about 25 minutes.

The results are quite astounding. Students rank number one in the county for their pass rate on the language arts section of the High School Exit Exam in 2001 and 2002. 100 percent of the students at this school have passed a language arts exam, and 91 percent are in the math portion. The academic performance index of ten out of ten in 2000 and 2001 ranks the highest possible. Over 112 students passed the

Golden State exam in Spanish as second-year students. Awards in the science fair, robotics, essays, and scholastic competitions abound.

So how did all this happen? It happened from the dedication of the principal and the staff. It happened from a group of extraordinarily hard-working students that found that sometimes when they separate from their own communities that they find a community of students who care, as they do, about receiving a high-quality education. They have supportive parents, obviously because these students have worked hard to get to the school, who value the education that perhaps they did not have; and university support, the support of student mentors and professors who assist with courses and projects, and an administration that provides the circumstances for success.

It also has community financial support. University Regent Peter Preuss and others enabled a wonderful school that would be built on the UCSD campus because they believed that being on a university campus such as UCSD would enable all the students who participate and help out in that school to have easy access to it. We all know, as I mentioned, that transportation is a necessity for all these low-income students, and they are working hard to assure that in the future.

The challenges for most charters are providing appropriate school buildings, and we know that that is appropriate to a well-rounded education. When they have easier transportation, perhaps the charter would be a true choice for many of the families. They work to maintain the parent and community support and also to have the support of the district administrations because we know that school districts and school district boards must nurture these alternatives and help them address them when they run into difficulties and even work to disband them when they fail. But above all they need to be engaged and they are engaged in sharing their successes.

Mr. Speaker, we, in fact, are a diverse people, and our children learn in diverse and different styles. Parents value the opportunity to focus the kind of education that will help their child grow. Public school charters offer the kind of choice that will enrich our children's educational growth, and we may be able to learn a lot from them about how children succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just make one or two brief points again. What we are talking about here is parent choice, and we know that parent choice is critically important within the public school system. I applaud my colleague from the District of Columbia, because she knows her district well and she knows that the parents have come forward and said that we have some good ideas about what will benefit our children and we want to work with the experts; we want to work with people from our community who are willing to come together and define and build on an idea that we have about how children succeed in school.

I applaud that, and I applaud the fact that there are so many charter schools within her district. I hope that my colleagues will have an opportunity to visit, and I hope to do that very soon. I know there is a charter school today that was celebrating its civic education program. They have young people there who are really learning what we hope all children throughout this country will learn, their responsibility as citizens. They are learning that, and they are learning that to a degree that probably is not seen in many of our schools throughout the country, and that occurs in a charter school.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues today. I thank them for bringing this resolution forward, for congratulating charter schools within our public school system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Guard and Reserve Selective Reenlistment Bonus Equity Act of 2003. Joining me today are my colleagues Rep. Mark Kirk, himself a Navy reservist, and Reps. Steve Buyer and Gene Taylor, Co-chairs of the House Guard and Reserve Caucus.

This bill would correct an unfortunate situation affecting guard members and reservists across the country that were mobilized for service to their country. Many have found that they can no longer receive payments on their reenlistment bonuses because of their mobilization status.

The primary purpose of the reenlistment bonus has been to maintain an adequate level of experienced and qualified enlisted personnel in the peacetime forces of the military services. In fact, legislative authority for a reenlistment bonus of one form or another has existed continuously since shortly after the Revolutionary War under a number of different names.

However, our experience with Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom has highlighted the fact that payments to mobilized guard members and reservists are suspended while they serve on active duty. For many, this creates a financial hardship and for others, a significant speed bump in their financial plans. This legislation would enable them to receive the payments due to them.

Currently, for U.S. operations pertaining to Homeland Security, and deployments in Afghanistan, and Iraq, 275,000 reserve troops

and National Guardsman have been mobilized. The activated troops serve along side active duty men and women.

It surprises me that inequities still exist between reservists and active-duty service members serving side by side to protect the interests of the United States and I am pleased to work with my colleagues in correcting one of them.

Knowing that the Senate has already acted on a similar measure, I am confident that this bill will enjoy swift approval by the House and will soon be at the President's desk for enactment into law.

Mr. Speaker, our nation's veterans have fought to protect our freedoms and the way of life we cherish. Unfortunately, when their service is done and they retire, our military personnel are too often excluded from the American Dream they fought to preserve.

We all know that military pay does not compare to private sector wages. After retirement, thousands of veterans cannot afford to purchase a home because their military pensions do not cover the cost of a mortgage payment.

Because of this inequity, the Veterans Administration instituted a home loan program to assist veterans achieve the dream of home ownership. While this is a commendable program, the maximum loan amount is often not enough to purchase a home--particularly in regions with high real-estate markets.

My legislation would increase this amount from $60,000 to $81,000 to make it comparable to the maximum loan amount available to the public. After giving so much to their nation, veterans deserve the same opportunities for home ownership given to every American.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a bill today designed to assure that literacy training is available to those who work with some of our youngest and most

vulnerable children, those who are part of the Even Start program.

These children's families qualify for Even Start because they are low socioeconomic families who may also be English learners. Program liaisons work with the families from the children's infancy until they are in school. Even Start funds approximately 1,400 programs and serves approximately 50,000 families across the Nation.

Without this existing William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program, these children would arrive for their first day of school without the literacy skills to compete at that starting line. They are unlikely ever to catch up, even if they are able to be served in the Head Start program before actually entering school, unless the adults who work with them in these critical early years learn literacy teaching skills and learn to value the role of education.

Over 86 percent of parents in the Even Start program have not completed high school upon entering the program (compared with about 27 percent of Head Start parents). Eighty percent of participants have a family income below $15,000 and over 40 percent have income below $6,000. This is clearly a high-needs population.

What the program offers is both literacy-training classes for the children and family literacy programs for the parents. Children participating in Even Start are provided with age-appropriate educational services to ensure that they will achieve at a level similar to that of their age peers who come from socio-economically enriched backgrounds.

Liaison advisors work with each family to promote strong literacy support experiences, to help parents learn ways they can develop their own English literacy skills, and to provide support groups for parents to share the challenges and skills of parenting.

In developing their own literacy, adults in these family literacy programs tend to participate longer than those in regular adult education programs because they can link their literacy growth to that of their children. They not only see benefits in improved literacy skills but also reduced dependency on federal/state assistance programs and enhanced employment opportunities. Most importantly, they are empowered to be successful as their child's first and most important teacher.

This bill will set aside funding to establish nationwide programs to assist in the training of program directors and facilitators in recently developed, research-based literacy training skills.

President Bush has declared his support for helping parents, day-care centers, and preschools teach more learning skills to children before they get to kindergarten. Even Start provides just such a program for parents to develop the literacy skills that enable them to perform this task. Because of new legislation, particularly the new qualifications for personnel, performance objectives, and ``scientifically-based reading research'' requirements for instructional programs, local Even Start programs also need to benefit from this type of high-quality training.

I have requested an evaluation to provide a longitudinal look at the achievement of children assisted by the program because I believe that evaluation must be embedded in all such programs.

It is overwhelming to bear heart-felt expressions of appreciation for the program and its leaders when I have visited Even Start programs. Adults marveled at the change in their children's feeling about reading and learning when they were able to make reading together a daily activity. One mother told me how she thought she couldn't help her 5 year old with reading, but, thanks to the program, she realized that reading together enabled them to help each other with the words each didn't know.

All children deserve an even start. This bill will assure that Even Start facilitators will be well-trained to help parents learn the skills that enable their children to be competitive at the starting line.

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 that women have different medical needs than men and that ob-gyns, in many cases, have the most appropriate medical background to address these needs. 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.

An American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Princeton survey of obgyns showed that 60 percent 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 percent also reported that their patients have to return to their primary care physician for permission before they can see their ob-gyn for necessary follow-up care. Equally astounding is that 28 percent of the ob-gyns surveyed reported that even pregnant women must first receive another physician's permission before seeing an ob-gyn.

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. When asked about a range of health policy issues another Kaiser survey discovered that women rate direct access to ob-gyns as their second priority.

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 the almost 5 million Californians enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. This means that 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 also means that one in four insured families are not protected by state direct access to ob-gyn laws.

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 quickly into law.

Women's Ob/Gyn Medical Access Now Act (WOMAN Act)

Bill Summary

Grants Direct Access: Gives women direct access to an OB/

GYN or a participating family practice physician or surgeon

designated by the plan or issuer as providing OB/GYN

services. Prohibits plans or issuers from requiring a

referral or prior approval.

Plan Considerations: Plan can set reasonable communication

requirements between OB/GYNs and primary care physician. Plan

can set reasonable utilization protocols, as long as those

protocols are the same for OB/GYNs as they are for other

physicians, such as primary care providers. (cannot be more

restrictive for OB/GYNs)

Nodfication for ERISA plans: Requires group health plans to

comply with the notice requirements for ERISA when they

modify their plan to comply with the rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask this Congress to seriously consider the harmful impact the budget resolution could have on veterans health care and other VA services. Already, thousands of veterans face waiting lists 6 months or longer to see a physician in a VA medical facility. All too often, veterans must seek treatment elsewhere simply because the VA does not have the resources to meet the need.

With so many veterans living in San Diego, I see firsthand the difficulties they encounter. Just today, Petty Officer Al Kovach, a paralyzed veteran from Coronado, called my office to share his story. He was bedridden for more than a year due to a service-related injury. Once doctors realized he required surgery, it took 6 months for an operating room to become available. I have heard from hundreds of others who have experienced similar delays in the VA health care system.

I do not see how, after the great sacrifices they have made, we can support a budget that cuts more than $25 billion in VA funding over the next several years. This astonishing amount will greatly reduce services and undoubtedly cause these waiting lists for health care to become even longer.

Madam Speaker, we are in a time of war. Last week we stood before the Nation and passed a resolution in support of our military personnel fighting in Iraq. On the same day, this body approved a budget outline that communicated a very different message to the men and women in the battlefield, that when the fighting is done and you return home, do not expect us to care for your needs.

I call on my colleagues to correct this contradiction, to prove that we support the men and women in harm's way and to prove to our veterans that we appreciate their sacrifices. We must restore appropriate levels of funding to the health care system and other VA services. Like the young men and women fighting today in Iraq, our veterans were there when we called upon them. Now we must be there when they call upon us.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the National Board-Certified Teacher in Low-Performing Schools Act of 2003 to place these highly skilled teachers

as facilitators in low-income low-performing schools.

A huge challenge for our schools is to help low-achieving students improve their academic performance. How do we make this happen? Many studies have shown that the single most critical component for a child's success is the quality of each teacher.

Districts across the country are struggling with ways to comply with The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, H.R. 1, known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. It requires that every classroom will have a highly-qualified teacher, but the definition of ``highly- qualified'' is not clear. The road to creating more highly skilled teachers is also unclear.

However, we do know that teachers who have successfully completed the rigorous, standards-based teaching evaluation and testing program run by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards are `highly qualified.' What we need to do is to encourage more of these highly accomplished teachers to seek positions in the most needy schools. Low- income, low-performing schools typically have newly hired teachers, many of whom are not fully credentialed or trained in teaching skills.

In California, I authored legislation to reward successful National Board candidates with a $10,000 merit award. One result of this recognition has been that this year the number of successful candidates was ten times the number in 1998, when the legislation was passed. In addition, the state gives an annual $5000 pay incentive for four years to each National Board Certified Teacher who seeks assignment to a low- performing school.

I propose to build on this method of providing incentives to urge these highly accomplished teachers to provide not only their fine teaching skills but also their availability as peers for the many new teachers assigned to these schools.

Both beginning teachers and experienced teachers can grow in their teaching skills and can be inspired to accept the challenge of the certification process to demonstrate this growth if they have the opportunity to work as a peer with a National Board Certified Teacher. Many teachers who have become certified report that the process itself improves their skills, as they must prepare standards-based, self- reflective portfolios of their teaching practices to submit for evaluation.

Therefore, I propose a pilot program for five years to pay up to 100 National Board Certified Teachers, each of whom is teaching in a low- income, low-performing school, $5000 per year to act as a resident facilitator to introduce the members of the faculty to the National Board evaluation progress. As a teacher must have taught for three years before applying for Board certification, the five-year period is needed to allow time for new teachers to be exposed to the process through the outreach program initiated by the facilitator.

The responsibilities of the facilitator would be to promote peer teacher participation and to work with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to recommend ways to encourage teachers to aspire to Board certification.

The facilitator would also receive a $1000 bonus stipend for each teacher who completes the process for becoming Board--certified at the school for which the recipient is the resident facilitator.

I believe that this pilot program can be a triple winner. The children of the low-performing school have another teacher who is clearly a highly qualified teacher. The faculty of that school has a peer teacher with identifiable teaching skills as a resource. And the school may grow its own crop of National Board Certified Teachers thus changing the image of being a low-performing school to the image of being a school with a highly-accomplished faculty.

Mr. Speaker, 50,000 marines and sailors who call San Diego home are officially at war, and I respect their courage and the skills they bring in defending our freedom. I have met with many of these families and with those who advocate on behalf of them, the ombudspeople who volunteer every day to ensure that parents and spouses and children get the support they need in times of peace and in times of war.

I supported the resolution 2 weeks ago, and I will support it again tonight, because my support overrides honest differences that I and many of my constituents have in the course that we have taken.

Jessica, whose fiance is a marine in the Gulf, sent in an article from San Diego today: ``Nobody wants war, but the troops need our support. They have the toughest job. I get to sleep in my bed tonight.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an opportunity to strengthen national security, promote bi-national commerce, and provide assistance to our dedicated agents at the border.

My district touches the U.S.-Mexico border. Because of this proximity, ports of entry play a vital role in our area's economic and social life. Thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents cross the border every day as commuters, shoppers, or visitors, illustrating the growing global connection between our neighboring countries. Unfortunately, our border infrastructure has not kept pace with the booming traffic volume, and travelers frequently encounter delays and congestion at the border.

The tragic events of September 11 further intensified these challenges along the border. Increased security measures severely over- extended inspection resources and waits lasting up to several hours became commonplace. Ports of entry in other states that had not previously encountered significant delays realized that they were not well equipped to handle future volume growth. This climate raised the need for innovative methods that meld security measures with more efficient practices. For some of my constituents, the answer came in the form of a dedicated commuter lane program called SENTRI.

SENTRI, which stands for Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection, accepts only low-risk travelers who pass both an extensive background check to verify their eligibility and a thorough inspection of their vehicle. After passing through these steps, travelers receive the privilege of using an exclusive lane to cross the border into the United States.

Since its introduction, SENTRI has quickly demonstrated its ability to reduce wait times without compromising border security. Border waits often lasted an hour or more before SENTRI, but now average only 5 to 15 minutes for enrollees. Travelers in other lanes also benefit because the prescreened SENTRI crossers move swiftly through the border, reducing the number of motorists using general commuter lanes. Expediting inspections through SENTRI is actually helping to improve border security, as Customs and Border Patrol agents can focus more attention on non-screened drivers and passengers. Additionally, those travelers in SENTRI lanes have a 50 percent greater probability of being referred to secondary inspection than those in regular lanes due to built in random selection. As a result of embedded security measures, statistics show an extremely low rate of fraud among renewal participants. Simply put, SENTRI lanes are more efficient and better inspected than regular commuter lanes.

Unfortunately, SENTRI has become a victim of its own success. SENTRI needs a greater investment of resources to keep up with the current and future demand. Enrollment increased by more than 100 percent after September 11 and, currently, prospective applicants must wait approximately 8 months. I believe that if we want innovative programs like

SENTRI to work, we must provide them with the tools and resources they need to succeed. This is why I am re-introducing the Secure and Fast Entry at the Border Act or SAFE Border Act.

The SAFE Border Act recognizes the contribution of SENTRI to border security and the agents who administer the program. My bill ensures the continuity of SENTRI as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs Department transition into the Department of Homeland Security, and reinforces recent agency action by permanently extending the SENTRI renewal period from 1 to 2 years--enabling border agents to process new applicants and reduce the current enrollment wait. SAFE Border also recommends the appointment of dedicated SENTRI staff to expedite application processing, encourages the creation of a dedicated commuter lane for prescreened, low-risk pedestrian crossers, and promotes the integration of technology at SENTRI sites for increased access at participating ports of entry.

Our agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every day. I believe we owe them the appropriate resources and support they need to carry out their duties. The SAFE Border Act, as a result, increases security by enabling more people to be prescreened and allowing border agents to focus more attention on other border crossers.

Our nation's economic and overall security is heavily linked to smooth and secure border crossings. The SAFE Border Act provides a way for trusted travelers to cross the border securely and quickly.

I urge my colleagues in Congress to act quickly in passing the SAFE Border Act into law.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I am deeply concerned about the devastating impact the President's budget could have on working families across this country, particularly at a time when our Nation stands at the very brink of war.

The cuts that are proposed in this budget stand to hurt the very families whose loved ones are overseas preparing to fight this war. Last weekend I had an opportunity to meet with a number of military families whose husbands, whose brothers, sisters and wives are courageously serving our Nation in Afghanistan and the Middle East. They shared with me their thoughts and fears while their loved ones were deployed so many miles away from home.

In addition to expressing the uncertainties that they face, they are also concerned about their children's future. That is why education is a major concern to them. They know that the quality of their children's education is dependent upon some significant Federal support.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget proposal seeks to cut education funding by more than $10 billion in the next year alone. In my home State of California, where the State budget deficit is expected to exceed $25 billion in 2004, as many as 30,000 teachers, counselors, nurses and administrators are already receiving notices to leave their posts in our children's schools. School districts are slashing a number of positions, and the President's budget provides no direct Federal aid to States to help with this great concern that we have.

At a time when we are sending more servicemen and women to Iraq each day, the very least we can do for them is to ensure that their children are receiving the very best services we can offer, but this budget is failing to meet this promise. While these same families are expressing their concerns as their loved ones are being sent abroad indefinitely to potentially face the perils of war, the very least of their concerns are costly tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, we have larger priorities at hand. While we are still attempting to assess the costs of the war, our focus should remain on providing for our Nation's military, their families and our national security. It is simply irresponsible to neglect these priorities in favor of sweeping tax cuts, tax cuts that largely fail to benefit the brave men and women we are sending overseas at this very moment.

We understand that at a time of war we may, in fact, face large deficits, but we should not make them greater by supporting a tax package that has at its very heart helping those that at this time need it the least. This is simply the wrong message to be sending not only to working families, but to military families carrying out their commitment to America.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Second Opinion Coverage Act of 2003--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 the almost 5 million Californians enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into 67 million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. This means that one in four insured families are not protected by California's own second opinion law! I believe the time has come to make access to second opinions a national standard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the President's proposal to drastically cut Impact Aid to schools.

The need has been clear for over half a century. Begun in 1950, Impact Aid compensates districts for the loss of taxes that support schools. Military land and the military homes located on that land do not pay property taxes.

But the administration would cut funding for children living off base, even though the compensation rate is much lower. Yet taxes are also lost from these families. Over three-quarters of servicemembers living in my district claim residence in other States and do not pay State income or car registration taxes. Sales at commissaries or exchanges on bases are exempt from State sales taxes. Property, income, and sales taxes are all needed to pay for education.

Today, Mr. Speaker, as members of our armed services are deploying in large numbers to prepare for a possible war, it is critical for them to know that their children's schools are being supported by the very country for whom they are prepared to give their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution that I cosponsor, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for it as well.

Those in military service to our Nation deserve our strong support in a time of such great uncertainty. But I would also add that their families deserve our support.

Mr. Speaker, each of us has said good-bye to a loved one headed to an airport for a business trip. Now imagine if that trip was halfway around the world and involved great risk. Imagine not knowing when they would be home. Today, more than 20,000 of our neighbors are in the Middle East. In San Diego and in communities all across the country, spouses and children will eat dinner tonight with an empty chair at the table. They will watch the news and wonder. When we talk to them, they will appear strong, and they are strong; but they need us.

I recently met with a group of Navy ombudsmen, women serving the families of those in their unit. They told me that their husbands have spent their entire careers preparing for what they face today; but they said the families must also prepare for the uncertainty for what they face, and let me tell Members, they are prepared. As we all wait and wonder, let us remember the important role of military families and reach out to them.