Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order. Is it appropriate when the gentleman makes remarks on the floor that they read the budget with----

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to acknowledge the fine work of Rolling Readers USA and of its founder, Robert Condon, who died in January at the young age of 40. In 1991, Mr. Condon, realizing the profound benefits of reading aloud to his sons, began reading to other children at a local homeless shelter and at a Head Start preschool. He was soon reading to children in Boys and Girls Clubs, after-school programs, and public housing sites. By recruiting 10 volunteers, Mr. Condon was able to rapidly expand this reading program to over 400 economically-disadvantaged children each week. From this simple beginning, Rolling Readers USA was born! Eight short years later, 40,000 volunteers now read to and tutor 300,000 children each week and give $3,000,000 worth of new books to children each year--often the first books these children have owned. Each volunteer in the Rolling Readers program reads to the same group of children each week, establishing a continuity, not only in tutoring, but in inspiring minds, touching imaginations, developing language skills, and assuring a positive impact on children's lives. The Rolling Readers vision is very clear. We have a major crisis in our country--for 30 years literacy rates in the United States have been falling, with the biggest decline occurring in those children already in the bottom half in reading test scores. The work of Rolling Readers volunteers is critical to our nation! Rolling Readers has grown from one man's ideals and commitment to service to become California's largest and one of the Nation's premier volunteer-based children's literacy organizations. Upon the death of its founder, Rolling Readers is sponsoring a national read-in day on March 27, 1999 to commemorate his life and achievements. I would like to add my voice to the many who are thanking Robert Condon for his vision, his leadership, and his outstanding contribution to the children of our nation.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear that the principle on which the Republican budget was based was helping the middle class. I want America to know that the budget that just passed broke the contract with our Nation's veterans. The motion that was just passed cut $3 billion over the life of that resolution from our veterans' programs. Under that budget, veterans' hospitals can close, our veterans with Persian Gulf War illness will not get treated, those with Hepatitis C will not be treated, our national cemeteries are in danger of being vastly undertreated. I am very glad to hear the principles under which this budget was passed. This budget breaks the contract with our Nation's veterans. This budget is unconscionable, it is shameful, and America ought to reject it.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this budget and in support of our Nation's veterans. This rule does not even allow the veterans of America to have a vote on the budget that they recommended to us to take care of their health needs, to take care of the cemetery needs, to take care of all of the issues which have been left up in the air in the last few years' straight-line budget. The Democrats in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs could not even have their amendment to raise the budget by $3.2 billion, which is what the veterans advocate. We were not even allowed a vote in our committee. We went to the Committee on Rules to ask for a vote on this on the floor. The Committee on Rules did not give us a vote. The veterans of this Nation fought for our country's democracy, fought for freedom of speech, fought for the right to be heard. And yet their budget is not even allowed to be heard on any committee or on the floor of this House. Reject this rule. Reject this budget. Vote ``yes'' for American veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, a number of us are rising this evening to commemorate the birthday next week of Cesar Chavez, a great national hero whose March 31 birthday we believe should be recognized as a national holiday. This Nation and the world lost a great civil rights leader nearly 6 years ago when Chavez died after a tireless struggle for social change. March 31 is a State holiday in my State of California; and countless schools, roads, libraries, and other public institutions have been named after Cesar Chavez. It is now time that the entire Nation honor his enduring legacy with a Federal holiday. From humble beginnings in 1927 on a small farm near Yuma, Arizona, Cesar Chavez rose to be a major force in American history, leading millions of people to better lives, inspired by his message of a nonviolent fight for peace and justice. As the son of migrant farm workers, he knew well the oppression these hard-working laborers faced. Influenced by the writings of Ghandi and other proponents of nonviolence, he began to register his fellow farm workers to vote and then to educate them about their rights to a safe workplace and a just wage. In 1962, Cesar Chavez and his family founded the National Farm Workers Association, which organized thousands of farm workers to confront one of the most powerful industries in our Nation. He inspired them to join together and nonviolently demand safe and fair working conditions. Through the use of a grape boycott, he was able to secure the first union contracts for farm workers in the United States. These contracts provided farm workers with the basic services that most workers take for granted, services such as clean drinking water and sanitary facilities. Because of Cesar Chavez' fight to enforce child labor laws, farm workers could also be certain that their children would not be working side by side with them and would instead attend the migrant schools that he helped to establish. In addition, Cesar Chavez made the world aware of the exposure to dangerous chemicals that farm workers, in fact all consumers, face every day. But his influence extended beyond agriculture. He worked in urban areas, organized voter registration drives, brought complaints against mistreatment by governmental agencies. He taught community members how to deal with governmental, school and financial institutions and empowered many to seek further advancement in education and politics. There are countless stories of judges, engineers, lawyers, teachers, religious leaders, I might add Congressmen and other hardworking professionals who credit Cesar Chavez as the inspiring force in their lives. During a time of great social upheaval, he was sought out by groups from all walks of life and religions to help bring calm with his nonviolent practices. Our country's leaders joined with Cesar literally and often figuratively in prayer and in acts of solidarity in his many fasts for justice. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. sent Chavez a message on the occasion of his first fast. Dr. King told Chavez, ``Our separate struggles are really one, a struggle for freedom, for dignity and for humanity.'' It is that struggle that earned him the admiration and respect of millions of Americans, including those of this Congressman and other of our colleagues who will join us tonight. We represent a fraction of the cosponsors of House Joint Resolution 22, which would commemorate Chavez' birthday and his legacy with a Federal holiday. I am proud that hundreds of people from the area I represent, San Diego, joined the thousands of people, in fact over 50,000, who came in caravans from Florida to California to attend the funeral of this national giant which was held near the United Farm Workers headquarters in Delano, California. We in Congress must join them in their reverence and must make certain that the movement Cesar Chavez began and the timeless lessons of justice and fairness he taught be preserved and honored in our national conscience. To make sure these fundamental principles are never forgotten, I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 22, which would declare March 31 a Federal holiday in honor of Cesar Chavez. In his words, in the words of the United Farm Workers, si, se puede, yes, we can.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a shameful budget for our veterans, and veterans across the country are angry. This budget breaks our contract with our Nation's veterans. We promised health care for life. But I will tell my colleagues, those who vote for this Republican resolution, their veterans are going to have to wait for months and months for appointments in a hospital, if it stays open. We promised to care for the disabled, but the folks in my colleagues' districts are going to have to wait years to have those claims processed. We do virtually nothing for those of our veterans who are on the streets, those who want education, those who want training. Over the life of this resolution, we have cut veteran benefits by $3 billion. This is shameful. This is unconscionable. I do not know how my colleagues wrote a budget resolution that says to those who have fought for us, who have fought to make this a democracy, who have fought to keep us here in the kind of condition where we have a surplus, say to them, ``Thanks, but no thanks. We are through with you.'' Vote no on this Republican resolution. Protect our Nation's veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that has come to us because of certain abuses that occurred in the granting of waivers. We asked the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, to look at that, and they confirmed that although the political abuses of waivers for burial at Arlington that were alleged did not occur, that most of these allegations were unfounded, there was a real need to clarify and write into law the eligibility rules for burial at Arlington National Cemetery. Up to a point, H.R. 70 does that very well and responds to GAO's concerns that standards for waivers have been inconsistently applied throughout the years. I am concerned, as are several members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, that this bill provides no realistic opportunity for our country to honor those unique Americans whose contributions are so extraordinary that burial at Arlington Cemetery would be entirely fitting. When the full committee marked up H.R. 70 last week, I offered an amendment to give the Secretary of the Army the authority to approve the burial of those rare and special individuals whose contributions inspire our Nation and honor them in this way. Let me just remind the House about those people who are now buried at Arlington that would not be allowed to under this legislation. We could not have honored Detective John Gibson, a member of the Capitol Hill police force who was killed in the line of duty last summer. We could not have honored Senator Robert Kennedy in this way; nor could we have honored Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger or Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, just to name a few. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) talked about the potential of a congressional resolution, I mean, talked about introducing politics into this process. I suggested an amendment which would regularize that process, allow the publication of any waivers that were requested by the Secretary and try to regularize that. I think, and I hope, that the other body when we go to conference will be able to design such a waiver procedure that satisfies the very legitimate concerns that have been raised regarding waivers. Mr. Speaker, I noted that the gentleman from Arizona talked about the support of veterans groups for this measure and one of the reasons behind bringing this up at this point in time. When we in our committee on March 11 considered our budget request to the Committee on the Budget, the veterans service organizations of this Nation had proposed what they called an independent budget, an independent budget which gave $3 billion more than the President did to satisfy our contract with our Nation's veterans. Unfortunately, this independent budget, which went beyond the chairman's recommendations and the majority's recommendation by $1.3 billion, was not even allowed to be voted on in our committee. We were not afforded the opportunity to vote on a budget supported by our Nation's veterans organizations. This budget, which was supported by the Democrats on the committee, tried to offset the unjustified low budget that the administration provided for the year 2000. We tried to say that the VA health care system was drastically underfunded and in danger of actual collapse. We tried to say that the GI bill was far short of realistic needs and failing as a readjustment benefit. We tried to say that desperately needed staffing increases included in this budget appeared to be phony, little more than transparent shell games. We tried to say that the national cemetery system has been underfunded for years and the money needed for basic repairs and upkeep was unavailable and we are not meeting our commitment to our Nation's veterans. Veterans were wronged by the administration budget, they were wronged by the majority on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs submission to the Committee on the Budget, and they were wronged by the budget resolution that is coming to us this week. I ask that this House, in recognition of our Nation's veterans, in recognition of the brave men and women who we are honoring by this H.R. 70 today which says that only those who deserve to be buried in Arlington should be, as an honor to those brave men and women who are buried at Arlington, we should not vote for this budget resolution that is being brought to us this week. It drastically underfunds the veterans budget. The health care system that the VA has provided for our Nation's veterans is in danger of going under. We should vote down the budget resolution when it comes before us because of its failure to provide for our Nation's veterans. Reluctantly I ask that H.R. 70 be approved today, but I hope that it is improved in the Senate.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, our intention is today, should be and is focused on the heroic actions of those buried at Arlington National Cemetery, but I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for bringing up the budget and also for his nomination to the President's Cabinet. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Stearns, but I wish we would have had this debate at the committee. As my colleagues know, we were not allowed to. And Mr. Stearns' criticism of the presidential budget is well founded, but that is history. The President made his suggestion. It is Congress' turn now. Mr. Speaker, my colleague can yell at the President all he wants, as I have, but now the gentleman is accountable, and I am accountable, and this Congress is accountable by law and by Constitution for the budget. The gentleman voted for a budget which went $1.9 billion above the President's. We offered an amendment to go $3.2 billion above the President's. That was not just dollars. It was to maintain the integrity of the VA health care system and other benefit systems. So the gentleman voted for the $1.9 billion, not for the $3.2 billion. The Republican budget that has come onto the floor this week, I think goes about $.9 billion above the President's. If the gentleman votes for that, that is his budget. It is not the President's anymore. It is the gentleman's and it is $2.3 billion below what the VSOs, the veterans service organizations, have suggested. I say to the gentleman and I will say to the House later this week, if the gentleman votes ``yes'' for that budget resolution he is supporting a budget which is insufficient for veterans and the Veterans Administration. It undermines our contract with our Nation's veterans. The gentleman now has an opportunity to stop yelling at the President and take responsibility for his vote, and I ask the gentleman, if he thinks that that budget is too low, as he says the President's was, vote ``no'' on the budget resolution. Join me in my recommittal motion which will ask for the independent budget's figure to be added to our budget resolution.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell you of the danger faced by 25 million people who get their water from the Colorado River because of radioactive waste leaching from an abandoned mine waste pile that is located only 750 feet away from the Colorado River. This deadly waste pile, abandoned by the Atlas Corporation, sits in the Moab Valley of southeastern Utah. The Colorado River, flowing past this site just south, provides water for 7 percent of the United States population, including Las Vegas, Arizona and the southern California urban areas of Los Angeles and the city I represent, San Diego. Legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have introduced, H.R. 393, would move this contaminated pile away from the Colorado River. Yesterday, the Project on Government Oversight, known as POGO, released a report recommending moving the pile as the most reliable way to save the growing population of Nevada, Arizona and California from having the highly contaminated waste leak into their water supply for the next 270 years. I pledge to continue to fight to move this pile, lest my constituents and most of the Southwest be forced to live under a sentence of radioactivity and contaminants in their drinking water for nearly 3 centuries. This is an unacceptable sentence and would likely be a death sentence for many. I cannot sit idly by while polluters and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inflict this on innocent people. Recently, this commission which, has jurisdiction over cleaning up the site, issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement stating that Atlas' plan to cap the radioactive pile is, quote, environmentally acceptable. Is it environmentally acceptable to cover 10.5 million tons of uranium mill wastes with rock and sand where the river can reach it during the spring runoff and cause a public health crisis? With the pile only 10 to 20 feet above the underground water aquifer, highly concentrated ammonia will continue to seep into the ground water. If the runoff is bad for three endangered species of fish, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledge, it surely is deadly, over time, for our children and our grandchildren. This POGO report details a clear problem with the NRC's jurisdiction of this pile, and our bill, H.R. 393, addresses this by removing the responsibility for the pile to the Department of Energy, which has the technology and experience with cleaning up sites and protecting public health. When the Department of Energy has been involved with contaminated sites along the Colorado River, it moved, and did not just cap, the sites with uranium concentration levels of less than 2 milligrams per liter. The uranium concentration levels at Moab which I am talking about exceed 26 milligrams per liter, and yet the NRC pushes forward with its plan, forcing the Fish and Wildlife Service to sign off on the sand capping plan just because the NRC lacks the authority to move this pile. As the report illustrates, it is past time to move this deadly pile, and to move jurisdiction for moving it to the Department of Energy, which will get this life-and-death job done. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 393.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the son of a Pittsburgh steelworker and in strong support of American steelworkers, the American steel industry and the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act. The case is clear. The American steel industry and our steelworkers are in crisis and Congress must act. Already, 10,000 steelworkers and iron ore miners have been laid off or have lost their jobs. Thousands more have had their workdays and paychecks cut. Several steel companies have been forced into bankruptcy. Our failure to approve this legislation and to end this crisis now risks the disappearance of the American steel industry altogether. We allow this to happen at tremendous cost to our economy and our national security. Mr. Speaker, our obligation ultimately is to the thousands and thousands of hard-working American families who have served their country mining and producing this critical product, put bread on the table by the sweat of their brow, raised families, contributed to their communities and who now risk losing everything because of the current steel dumping crisis. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I urge President Clinton to be loyal to the hard-working American men and women who have been loyal to him and sign this legislation.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Monday, March 15th as the 10th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a Cabinet-level position. Because by 1988, VA had become the largest independent agency in government, thought was given to its recognition as a member of the President's Cabinet. Serving a population of 27.5 million veterans with a budget of $28.3 billion, with 245,000 employees, it was second only to the Department of Defense in the number of staff providing service to our citizens. At the urging of both Congress and many veterans' service organizations, the current President endorsed the idea that the time had come for the VA to become a part of the Cabinet. It was time to give our nation's veterans their seat at this highest table of government. Elevating the Department of Veterans Affairs to Cabinet level status provided the Department the opportunity to have greater national impact for veterans in the fields of health care, education, housing, and insurance. It was a move that cost virtually nothing in that era of tight budgets, yet gave veterans a prominent voice in the issues that dominate the national agenda. I congratulate the Department of Veterans Affairs on a decade of growth in service to our nation's veterans, the dedicated men and women who accepted the challenge to protect their country, many of which gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and liberty. I further encourage the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs and his staff to continue to take full advantage of the opportunity that Cabinet-level status provides to advocate on behalf of these brave men and women.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a travesty that happened in the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs just a few hours ago. As we all know, this committee has had a long-standing tradition of bipartisanship, of working together, of advocacy for our nation's veterans. That all changed today. Unbelievably, on the eve of the bipartisan retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, the Members of the majority on this committee decided not to allow a discussion or a vote on an alternative budget that was derived from the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, a comprehensive policy document created by veterans for veterans and endorsed by over 50 veterans' service organizations. As we are well aware, the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget for veterans is completely unacceptable. Under this budget, the VA health care system is drastically underfunded and in danger of actual collapse. This budget for the GI Bill is far short of realistic needs and failing as a readjustment benefit and as a recruitment incentive. Desperately needed staffing increases included in this budget appear to be phony--little more than transparent shell games. The National Cemetery System has been underfunded for years, and the money needed for the most basic repairs and upkeep is unavailable. These are drastic problems and they demand serious, substantial solutions! Veterans have been wronged by this budget, and it is the responsibility of Congress to right that wrong. For many, many years, America's veterans have been good soldiers. They have done their duty and been conscientious, responsible citizens. Every time the Veteran's Affairs Committee was handed a reconciliation target, it met that target. Billions of veterans' dollars have been handed over in order to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. Time and time again, America's veterans answered their nation's call. The country needed their support, and America's veterans gave all that they could give. Well, the budget deficit has been eliminated. That battle has been won. I believe that this year, it is time for America's veterans to come first. We, as a nation, owe them that. I listened closely to the testimony of the many veterans' service organizations as they have come to Washington to appear before the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees over the past few weeks. I carefully studied the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, which I mentioned earlier. I hear a strong sense of urgency and frustration and even anger that I've never heard before. America's veterans are telling us that they have done more than their fair share--and now they expect us to be their advocates. As I read the Independent Budget, I was struck by this powerful statement that I would like to share with you. The signers of the Independent Budget said, ``As the Administration and Congress develop budgets and policies for the new millennium, we urge them to look up from their balance sheets and into the faces of the men and women who risked their lives to defend our country. We ask them to consider the human consequences of inadequate budgets and benefit denials for those who answered the call to military service.'' I took this to heart! Because, as I said earlier, the Administration budget of $43.6 billion is completely unacceptable, we Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee developed a proposal, based on this Independent Budget, that would add $3.19 billion to the Administration proposal. We came to the meeting today, hoping for a full discussion of the chairman's proposal which added $1.9 billion to the Administration's request, the Democratic alternative which added $3.19 billion--and a vote on which one to send to the Budget Committee. For I believe that it is our duty, as members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, to send to the Budget Committee the very best ``views and estimates'' on the VA budget that we can. In a democratic society, it is our right to be able to express ourselves, to debate and discuss various alternatives, and to vote! The chairman's recommendation could have gained more votes than the Democratic alternative proposal, but we will never know. Because a vote was not permitted. Not to allow a full discussion of the needs of veterans and the best way to meet those needs--this is simply outrageous. These are the needs of our veterans that we are talking about! Let us hope that the travesty that occurred this afternoon in the Veterans' Affairs Committee will not be repeated for a very long time. As the Independent Budget asks of us, I ask my colleagues to remember the faces of the men and women who sacrified so much as we develop a budget worthy of our nation's veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his leadership in sponsoring this time so we can talk about the needs of our nation's schools. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) just talked about New York City. I am going to bring this 3,000 miles west to talk about San Diego, California, and the situation is very much as the gentleman described in my hometown. By the way, I went to school, graduated 40 years ago in I think a school in the gentleman's district, Forest Hills High School, just out, but I am sure that is a school that needs just the kind of thing. It was a great school 40 years ago, it is still there, it has probably more than 5,000 students in it, and it needs help.

Mr. FILNER. We had Simon and Garfunkel a year ahead of us in school. I am the former President of the San Diego Board of Education, and I know how we have to make our children's education a top priority for all of us. Quality education demands that we provide our teachers and students with classrooms and school buildings that are not falling down around them. In my home town of San Diego, in the towns I represent, Chula Vista and National City, California, the needs are becoming almost overwhelming. The San Diego Unified School District, which is about the sixth biggest school district in the nation, serves 140,000 children, and we are growing at almost 2 percent a year. Willing to do their part, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) suggested in New York, the citizens of San Diego recently voted last year a $1.5 billion school bond, and they did that by over 75 percent of the vote. That is an incredible support to show that people are willing to use their own tax dollars for their top priority, their children. But our needs are almost 4 billion by the year 2,013. That is another 2\1/2\ billion have to be found. Twenty new elementary schools, two new middle schools, four new senior high schools have to be built by the year 2013. Further south in my district, the Sweetwater Union High School District, serves 33,000 students in grades 7 to 12. They need $240 million worth of modernization. They, too, will have a bond issue on the ballot next year, and I am sure our population will support it. But most of the schools are more than 30 years old, five were built 50 years ago, two-thirds of them now accommodate more than twice the number that they were originally built for. We are running out of room in San Diego, in National City and Chula Vista just as you described in New York City. Like trying to maintain a car with 100,000 miles or more, the job of maintaining our schools is increasingly difficult. Let me mention two specific examples, just to bring this home. At Castle Park High School frequent sewer back ups, water leaks and broken pipes disrupt the school routine. The wobbly, 35-year-old gym bleachers need to be replaced. Crumbling steps and walkways pose danger because chunks of aging cement are missing and tree roots have ripped up concrete. Old classrooms have been converted into science labs, but they lack adequate lab facilities, and hands-on experiments are severely limited. Ten temporary classrooms have no rest rooms or drinking fountains because the existing sewer lines cannot handle the demand. Hilltop Middle School was built in the 1950s. Its campus has deteriorated to the point where routine maintenance and replacement efforts have only minimal impact. The teachers have memorized the circuit breaker locations, Mr. Speaker, because classrooms regularly blow fuses from electrical overhead when lights, and overhead projectors and computers are used simultaneously. Students cannot shower following their physical education classes because of the antiquated plumbing system which cannot produce hot water. Long lines to restroom facilities are a daily routine because the school has only one set of boys' and one set of girls' bathrooms for 1,250 students. How can our students develop in this computer age if the wiring and electrical supply to their schools cannot handle the computers? Physical education should be an integral part of healthy students's lives but how can we expect our kids to exercise and then sit in sweaty clothes and bodies for the rest of the day because there are no showers to use? I know we have heard of the broken window theory as it applies to our community. That is when a window breaks and is fixed the neighborhood maintains its quality. The message is sent that someone cares. Opposite, when a window breaks and it is not fixed the message is just the opposite. We do not care as a community, and soon another is broken and another and still another. Deterioration of the area then leads to graffiti, gangs, drugs and crimes. We know that routine. We are sending the wrong message to our kids. With dilapidated and overcrowded schools, we are telling them education is not important. What a disservice to our young people. So let us join with the President, let us join with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) today, let us join with our colleagues from all over the Nation in support of the school reconstruction funding proposed in the families first agenda. We at the Federal level must do our part in supporting the efforts of local school districts and our States. Congress should pass the school reconstruction and modernization legislation as soon as possible. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his leadership here. I also thank the gentlemen from Massachusetts and North Carolina and Oregon, and I know we are going to hear from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember a great American leader and hero, Cesar Chavez. He was a husband, father, grandfather, labor organizer, community leader and symbol of the ongoing struggle for equal rights and equal opportunity. March 31, the birthday of Cesar Chavez, has already been declared a State holiday in my State of California. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in making March 31 a Federal holiday so that our entire Nation can honor Cesar Chavez for his many contributions. Cesar was the son of migrant farm workers who dedicated his life to fighting for the human rights and dignity of farm laborers. He was born on March 31, 1927, on a small farm near Yuma, Arizona, and died nearly 6 years ago in April of 1993. Over the course of his 66-year life, Cesar Chavez' work inspired millions and made him a major force in American history. In 1962, Cesar Chavez and his family founded the National Farm Workers Association which organized thousands of farm workers to confront one of the most powerful industries in our Nation. He inspired them to join together and nonviolently demand safe and fair working conditions. Through the use of a grape boycott, he was able to secure the first union contracts for farm workers in this country. These contracts provided farm workers with the basic services that most workers take for granted, services such as clean drinking water and sanitary facilities. Because of his fight to enforce child labor laws, farm workers could also be certain that their children would not be working side by side with them and would instead attend the migrant schools he helped to establish. In addition, Cesar Chavez made the world aware of the exposure to dangerous chemicals that farm workers and every consumer faces every day. As a labor leader, he earned great support from unions and elected officials across the country. The movement he began continues today as the United Farm Workers of America. Cesar Chavez' influence extends far beyond agriculture. He was instrumental in forming the Community Service Organization, one of the first civic action groups in the Mexican-American communities of California and Arizona. He worked in urban areas, organized voter registration drives, brought complaints against mistreatment by government agencies. He taught community members how to deal with governmental, school and financial institutions and empowered many thousands to seek further advancement in education and politics. There are countless stories of judges, engineers, lawyers, teachers, church leaders, organizers and other hardworking professionals who credit Cesar Chavez as the inspiring force in their lives. During a time of great social upheaval, he was sought out by groups from all walks of life and all religions to help bring calm with his nonviolent practices. In his fight for peace, justice, respect and self-determination, he gained the admiration and respect of millions of Americans and most Members of this House of Representatives. Cesar Chavez will be remembered for his tireless commitment to improve the plight of farm workers, children and the poor throughout the United States and for the inspiration his heroic efforts gave to so many Americans. We in Congress must make certain that the movement Cesar Chavez began and the timeless lessons of justice and fairness he taught be preserved and honored in our national conscience. To make sure that these fundamental principles are never forgotten, I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 22 which would declare March 31 as a Federal holiday in honor of Cesar Chavez. In the words of Cesar and the United Farm Workers, si se puede, yes, we can.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our Social Security system and in opposition to radical and unnecessary plans to privatize this system. My constituents and their families know how important Social Security is in their lives. Almost 44 million beneficiaries each year count on Social Security each and every month. It is the most successful antipoverty program in our history. We all contribute, we all benefit, and we all have a responsibility to strengthen the system for future generations. That is why I will fight to stop the push by a few special interests to privatize our Social Security system, to enshrine into law a winner- take-all, win-or-lose philosophy that would leave millions of Americans at risk. Today, nearly every family in America counts on Social Security. In years past, old age meant poverty. Social Security has changed that. For women, Social Security is particularly important. Women over 65 count on Social Security for nearly three-quarters of their entire retirement income. For people of color, Social Security is indispensable. On average, people of color have lower lifetime earnings and fewer pensions. As a result, for more than three-quarters of all older African-American and Latino households, Social Security is more than half of their retirement income. When we consider that the Latino elderly population is expected to triple by the year 2030, we see that Social Security is growing in importance. For younger workers, too, Social Security matters. Today's jobs are leaving them with fewer resources. Only about 18 percent of employees in small businesses have a retirement plan and about 3 percent of temporary workers have one. For young people in these jobs of the future, Social Security's rock solid foundation is more important than ever. And let us not forget about the nearly one-third of all Social Security beneficiaries who are not retired. They are our friends and neighbors who have dealt with a tragic death or disability in their families and who are counting on Social Security to help them get back on their feet. Social Security means guaranteed protection no matter who you are, what you look like or what your luck in the market happens to be. But despite all this, people in my district and all across the country are anxious, because they have heard a consistent message that Social Security will not be there for them when they need it. Mr. Speaker, this is simply not true. The reality is that Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits for the next 30 years. One hundred percent. That is the reality. Our challenge is to strengthen the system so that it lasts well beyond that. Despite all the talk in Washington and in the media about privatizing Social Security, my constituents back home oppose it. They are opposed to gambling away the security that their families depend on for a risky alternative. It seems that the ideologues and Wall Street financiers are out of touch with America. They are selling a plan that would do nothing to fix Social Security but would eliminate its rock solid guarantee, and it would in fact make the system's financing even worse. To pay for their idea, Mr. Speaker, they would hike the retirement age to 70 or even higher and cut guaranteed benefits by 20 to 30 or 40 percent. In exchange for these benefit cuts, they would force every American to buy a Wall Street account that they say will make up the difference, on average. But it is important to remember that we are talking about averages here. Some may clean up but many will get cleaned out. Privatization forces all of us to carry that risk, but, win or lose, Wall Street will clean up with exorbitant fees to manage these mandatory accounts. All of this is unnecessary. We can make the minor repairs Social Security needs in a sensible way and maintain the vital guarantee our families depend on. Privatization plans fail this test. Last year the President and many of us pledged to save Social Security first. This year the President released a plan to do just that. It is a good start for this historic opportunity to strengthen Social Security for generations to come. I pledge to follow the will of my constituents in San Diego, California, to settle for nothing less. We must not privatize Social Security.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to five bills I have introduced to address some major concerns of our Nation's service members, military retirees and veterans. The first is H.R. 363, the Military Survivor's Equity Act. It is hard to believe that we continue to condone a system that penalizes the aging widows of our Nation's veterans, but that is exactly what the Military Survivors Benefits Plan does. When a member of the military retires, he or she may join the Survivors Benefits Plan, known as the SBP. After paying a premium for many, many years, the retiree expects that his or her spouse will receive 55 percent of the retired military pay. Most of the survivors who receive SBP benefits are military widows. You may not realize that when these widows who are receiving SBP benefits turn 62, a Social Security offset causes their benefits to be reduced from 55 percent to 35 percent of their husband's military retiree pay. This occurs even when the Social Security comes from the wife's employment. What does this reduction mean to our Nation's military widows? I have received many letters on this subject. Let me just read from one. I am quoting: ``My husband, who served in the Army for 20 years, was on Social Security disability because of heart problems and could no longer work. He died in July, 1995. I was then 61 years old. I received Social Security income plus my SBP. With both of these incomes, I was doing fine paying my monthly bills and having enough left for groceries. When I turned 62, I was notified that my SBP was reduced from $476 to $302. What a shock. This was my grocery money that they took away from me.'' It is time to change this misleading, unfair law. We must provide some equity to the surviving spouses of our military retirees. My bill would fix this problem by eliminating the callous and absurd reduction in benefits and give what is expected and what is deserved: 55 percent of the military retired pay. To put it simply, no offset. A simple solution to a difficult problem, an equitable solution to a mean- spirited practice. The second bill is H.R. 364, the Veterans' Training and Employment Bill of Rights Act. This would ensure that service-disabled veterans and veterans who serve in combat areas will be first in line for federally funded training-related services and programs. Under current law, veterans are often underserved by national programs such as the Job Training Partnership Act because it sometimes mistakenly assumes that the veterans receive the same services from the VA Department. My bill would reinforce our commitment to provide special training assistance for veterans and make it clear that eligible veterans have earned a place at the front of the line. The bill would also establish the first effective appeals process for veterans who believe their rights have been violated under veterans' employment-related programs. The Secretary of Labor would be required to help veterans who believe that Federal contractors have not met their obligation to hire veterans and to help veterans who believe they were not given preference for enrollment in Federal training programs. This bill would provide the teeth that have been missing from some veterans' training programs and would go a long way toward ensuring that veterans' rights are respected. A third bill is H.R. 366, the Veterans' Entrepreneurship Promotion Act. Many veterans have told me that they would like to own a small business, and our national economy would certainly be strengthened if more veterans were able to establish their own companies. This bill is designed to do just that, by establishing a program to help disabled and other eligible veteran-owned small businesses compete for Federal contracts. Also included is a program of training, counseling and management assistance for veterans interested in starting a small business. Veterans who want to pursue self-employment should be supported and encouraged. H.R. 365 is the Let Our Military Buy a Home Act. Under this plan, the Department of Defense, in cooperation with Veterans Affairs, would be permitted to test a program designed to relieve the military housing crisis. Military personnel stationed in areas where the supply of suitable military housing is adequate, as in my hometown of San Diego, could purchase homes for themselves and their families at reduced interest rates. This practice would reduce the cost of building on-base housing and would expand opportunities for service members to own their own homes. Initially introduced in the 104th Congress by our good friend and former colleague, the honorable and legendary G.V. Sonny Montgomery, and included in Public Law 104-106, this program was inexplicably not implemented by the Department of Defense. Sonny's idea is a good one and I encourage you to join in pursuing this creative approach to dealing with the military housing program. Finally, a bill to Extend Commissary and Exchange Store Privileges, H.R. 362. This legislation would allow veterans with service-connected disability to use commissary and exchange stores on the same basis as the members of the Armed Forces entitled to retired pay. I believe that these veterans have earned the right to commissary privileges.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a husband and father, a veteran and war hero, and a member of the San Diego community who died on November 7, 1998, at the age of 75. Leopoldo ``Condo'' Gonzales was born to Sophia and Francisco Gonzales on October 7, 1923. In 1941, he met Connie Briones, and they were married on July 14, 1943. Condo joined the Army in 1942 to serve his country in World War II. He served with the 63d Engineer Battalion in Europe until the end of the war, and received the Campaign Medal, three Bronze Stars, and two Victory Medals. Condo and Connie began their family with the birth of their first child, Robert, in 1946. Joining Robert was his brother, Frank, in 1948 and sister, Margie, in 1952. After the war years, Condo worked for the Cannery and Cudahy Meat Packing Company. He was a member of Masonry Union Local No. 89 and worked for several construction companies before his retirement. Condo and his family lived in the Linda Vista area of San Diego for many years before moving to their farm in Lakeside, CA. Condo enjoyed gardening, and his farm was full of watermelons, corn, and animals. In 1956, they moved back to San Diego, to the Sierra Mesa area. In his retirement years, Condo enjoyed especially his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. His was a wonderful life. He was a man who did his duty to his country, who raised his family well, and who contributed to his community. He is survived by Connie, his wife of 55 years, as well as his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife and family and to the larger community that was touched by his presence.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to vote ``no'' on impeachment. In this way, I am voting ``yes'' to protecting our Constitution. It is we who oppose this travesty today who are in fact supporting our Constitution. In the view of the Framers, impeachment is reserved for those who undermine the fundamental political and constitutional structure of our union. While President Clinton's behavior was both reckless and indefensible, it is not impeachable. It is this Congress that is subverting the Constitution by trivializing the impeachment process. We have heard much today about the rule of law. All of us here today respect the rule of law, but the aim of the rule of law is justice, a word that I never, ever heard from the majority Members on the Committee on the Judiciary or here today. In this case, justice demands something in between no action and the national agony of impeachment. That something has been called censure, and it is a course of action supported by most Americans. It is a course of action supported by a majority of this House were we allowed to vote on it, yet the Republican leadership is so obsessed with getting this President, they will not even allow this alternative to be debated. Why do we not get our vote of conscience? Where is the rule of fairness? Our vote today must not only produce justice, it must bring America together; it must heal America. The questioning of the President's motives in Iraq are only the beginning of a distrust and a suspicion that will engulf this Nation during a long impeachment trial. We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly as possible so we as a Nation can move on to deal with our domestic and international problems. I urge this Congress to immediately censure the President, begin the process to heal the breach of trust that engulfs us. Vote ``no'' on the impeachment resolution. Ken Starr has already spent four years and $40 million investigating every aspect of the President's public and private life. It is irresponsible for this process to go any further and tie up our nation for who knows how long. The world economy is collapsing, our health care system needs major reform, our whole campaign finance system is corrupt--and we will be talking for months about who touched who where! We've heard much today about ``the rule of law.'' All of us here today respect the rule of law. But the aim of the rule of law is justice--a word that I never, ever heard from the majority members on the Judiciary Committee or here today. In this case, justice demands something in between ``no action'' and the national agony of impeachment. That something has been called ``censure''--and it is a course of action which is supported by most Americans. It is a course of action that is supported by the majority of this House--were we allowed to vote on it. Yet the Republican leadership is so obsessed with getting this President, they won't even allow an alternative to be debated and voted on. Why don't we get our ``vote of conscience''? Where is the rule of fairness? Our vote today must not only produce justice, it must bring America together, it must heal America. The questioning of the President's motives in Iraq are only the beginning of the distrust and suspicion that will engulf this nation during a long impeachment trial. We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly as possible--so we as a nation can move on to deal with our domestic and international problems. I urge the Congress to immediately censure the President--and begin the process to heal the breach of trust that engulfs us now. Vote ``no'' on this impeachment resolution.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for what many in this country do not know has occurred, but is exceedingly important. That is the unilateral cease-fire that was declared on August 28, 1998, by the Kurdish rebel leader, Abdullah Ocalan. Taking part in a live broadcast on Med-TV from his base in the Middle East, Mr. Ocalan noted that, effective September 1, 1998, he has ordered his guerillas to cease their operations and silence their guns until further notice. This is a momentous opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the advocates of peace, the defenders of human rights, and the champions of trade with the oil-rich countries that surround this explosive region called Kurdistan. For several years now, Mr. Speaker, I have risen on this floor to draw the attention of my colleagues to the enduring struggle of the Kurds for peace, democracy, and human rights. I have strongly supported their inalienable right to self-determination. Who among us has not heard of the brutality exercised against the Kurds by Saddam Hussein? The theocracy in Iran has targeted the top leadership of the Kurdish resistance, and murdered many of its ablest leaders. Turkey, a country that we supported as a bulwark against the Soviet expansion during the Cold War, has left its own trail of desolation in the land of the Kurds. We cannot afford to call a country a friend, ally, and partner, Mr. Speaker, if it refuses to practice the most basic dictates of democracy, such as the freedom of expression and assembly. Kurds, who constitute one-third of the population of Turkey and number some 20 million, are denied their basic human rights, such as the expression of their identity, the use of their own language, the practice and perpetuation of their culture, as a distinct and indigenous people that has its roots in the dawn of history. The Turkish constitution, the solemn document binding the peoples of Turkey together, makes no reference to the existence of the Kurds. Its Article 3 expressly forbids the use of the Kurdish language in print and in official settings. The Kurds, thus, can write books in English, French, or German, but not in their native Kurdish. Those who do end up with a prison sentence that can run into a century. The noted Turkish sociologist, Ismail Besikci, who has merely written about the Kurds, has accumulated prison sentences of more than 100 years. Many of us are well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the historical abuse of the Armenians. In 1915, the Armenians were systematically exterminated in the Ottoman Empire. A similar strategy is now being carried out against the Kurds. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for a bold departure from the old policy of entrusting a blank check to Turkey to do whatever it wishes with its Kurdish minority. The government in Ankara has abdicated its responsibility, and entrusted the entire Kurdish region to the rule of uncompromising Turkish generals for the last 18 years. They have killed more than 40,000 people, and have driven 3 million from their homes. More than 3,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed. Duly-elected Kurdish parliamentarians are now rotting in jails. The voices of compromise and reconciliation have been silenced. We are witnessing an historical tragedy. Now the offer of the cease-fire by the Kurdish rebel leader has the potential to bring peace to this troubled region, and open the way for the coexistence of the Kurds with the Turks. Mr. Ocalan has stated that he is ready to disband his forces if Turkey takes steps to constitutionally recognize its 20 million Kurdish population. Some courageous leaders in Turkey now recognize the crisis must be solved. On September 11, 1998, Husamettin Cindoruk, leader of the Democratic Turkey Party, a member of the ruling coalition in the Turkish government, actually admitted that negotiations must begin. As he said, Turkey will get nowhere by masking this problem and delaying a solution. He suggested that the talks that produced the good Friday agreement between Ireland and Britain can be the model for his own country. Members of the largest Turkish party, the Virtue Party, Recai Kutan and Hasim Hasimi, have also expressed similar sentiments. These deputies ought to be commended for their courage. Their words carry the real promise of peace. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but bring to the attention of this body the plight of a group of Turkish and Kurdish women who have gathered in front of Galatasaray High School to protest the disappearance of their loved ones over the last 3 years. Known as the Saturday Mothers, they were visited this past January by our colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. John Porter) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer), and the President of the Human Rights Alliance, Kathryn Porter. Under the U.N. Declaration of Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the authorities are obliged to carry out prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into every report of disappearance. According to Amnesty International, no investigations satisfying these criteria have been carried out. This sad state of affairs was compounded on August 29 when police detained 150 people. With the declaration of this Kurdish cease-fire, we now have an opportunity. We helped to make possible the Good Friday Agreement, the Dayton talks, and the Israeli-Palestinian accords. We must do no less for the Kurds.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also rise in strong support of H.R. 4110, the Veterans' Program Enhancement Act of 1998. I think this is a measure which is the result of bipartisan and bicameral cooperative efforts on behalf of our Nation's veterans. Of particular importance to our Gulf War veterans are provisions from the bills introduced in the House by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and by our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lane Evans), and in the Senate by Senator Rockefeller. While we have to go further in the next Congress, these provisions will provide an independent third-party review by the National Academy of Sciences concerning the exposure to toxic substances present in the gulf theater and the prevalence of illnesses experienced by our gulf veterans; it will extend eligibility for health care for Persian Gulf Veterans until December 31, 2001; and it makes a number of changes to improve the health care offered to Gulf War veterans. All of these measures should be of assistance to those who have served during the Gulf War. There are other very helpful provisions for all our veterans in terms of education, employment, insurance, housing and burial programs. This is an excellent bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, it is this Congress that is subverting the constitution by trivializing the impeachment process. Ken Starr has been 4 years and $40 million investigating every part of the President's life, and we are going to embark on an open-ended investigation while the world economy is collapsing, the health care system needs reform, our own finance system is corrupt, and we will be talking for months about who touched who where. The continued investigation of the President is nothing more than a cover-up for the failure of a do-nothing Congress to address the real issues facing the American people. I am voting ``no'' on opening an impeachment inquiry. Impeachment is the gravest of offenses. In the view of the framers of our Constitution, impeachment is reserved for those who undermine the fundamental political and Constitutional structure of our nation. While President Clinton's behavior was both reckless and indefensible, it is not impeachable. It is this Congress that is subverting the Constitution by trivializing the impeachment process. Ken Starr has already spent four years and $40 million investigating every aspect of the President's public and private life. It is irresponsible for this Congress to continue an open-ended investigation for who knows how long. The world economy is collapsing, our health care system needs major reform, our whole campaign finance system is corrupt--and we will be talking for months about who touched who where! This continued investigation of the President is nothing more than a ``coverup'' for the failure of a do-nothing Congress to address the real issues facing the American people. We must bring closure to this sorry chapter in our history as quickly as possible--so we as a nation can move on to deal with our domestic and international problems. To that end, I would urge the Congress to immediately censure the President--and begin the process of healing the breach of trust that engulfs us now.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise reluctantly to oppose this measure this evening. I thank the chairman of the committee for his outline of the situation. He is correct. The situation is as he described, as someone who represents the adjacent district to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and whose district has that sewage flowing through it to Mr. Bilbray's. And I thank him for his attention to it, and what I heard was his commitment to resolve it. And when I say reluctantly, I say that to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) because my colleagues should know that there have not been probably two people who have worked more closely or, I think, more effectively to resolve this issue over the last decade than the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and myself. He was a county supervisor before he became a Member of Congress. I was a city councilman. Our districts completely interlocked, and we worked hand in hand to address this issue, and we had success. Nobody has made more progress over the last decade than we were able to do working together, working together in local government, working together in the Congress, working together with Mexico. We have seen the building of the international wastewater treatment plant which, when the out fall is completed by the end of November, we will open and go a long way toward resolving that problem. And that treatment plant was built in San Diego with the cooperation of Mexico and the City of Tijuana and the State of Baja. So the gentleman knows that we have worked hand in hand on these issues. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) when he says he wants a forum to educate Congress and he wants to raise awareness, and we are doing that, but this is the wrong way to complete that job. It is only a sense of Congress, as the gentleman pointed out. It is not legally binding. So there is not much effect if it does pass. The language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) uses threatens sanctions with Mexico. It implies that we are going to look at loan guarantees and foreign aid. I will tell the gentleman, though, even if we eliminated the foreign aid, direct foreign assistance to Mexico, tomorrow, it constitutes less than 0.001 percent of our total trade. So I am not sure what effect it has in the real world, except the way Mexico and its officials take it and how they will react in the kinds of discussions that we have participated in for over a decade, and I am sure we will be continuing to participate in in the next decade. The resolution of the gentleman does nothing to clean up the pollution and the sewage that he so eloquently describes. It is a real problem for the gentleman's constituents, for my constituents. That is why we have worked together to develop infrastructure. That is why NAD Bank recently granted $16 million to develop a parallel sewage conveyance system and to help Tijuana upgrade its sewage treatment plant. That is why as I have a letter here from the commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission, Mr. Bernal, who we both know very well, who is reporting on an agreement on the Mexicali II project that was just executed. Mexicali working with both countries have put in the money for a wastewater system capacity for the city of Mexicali for a pump station and wastewater treatment plant. The U.S. is providing 55 percent; Mexico 45 percent. I think that is the kind of cooperation that we need. The problem is real. We have heard it. The answer is cooperation, not threats, not sanctions. We have made great progress. The gentleman knows that. The gentleman is one of the chief architects of that cooperation. Let us not put that cooperation in jeopardy. The administration, the State Department, opposes this bill. The Mexican Government opposes the bill. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) we have correspondence from the embassy and our good friend the consul in San Diego wondering why, after just having attended meetings with him, the gentleman has taken a position which seems to be very hostile. It puts people in a very difficult situation when we try and negotiate agreements all across our border. So I rise reluctantly because the gentleman and I have worked for so long together on these issues and I look forward to working with the gentleman over the next years on these to solve them but let us work with a cooperative tone and not a tone that threatens sanctions.