Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to congratulate ``Meredythe and Recycle! Kids'' for their seventh anniversary and to applaud their recent recognition as the official environmental youth ambassadors for the city of San Diego. Meredythe and the Recycle! Kids was created in 1988 by Meredythe Dee Winter as a unique learning experience for homeless and underserved youth. Hundreds of children have participated in the program. All children are welcome to participate in special workshops that teach them to become aware of environmental issues and enjoy a caring, artistic atmosphere. Members have contributed their skills in choreography, gymnastics, singing, and dancing. The Recycle! Kids has achieved international recognition. Meredythe and the Recycle! Kids was the only program chosen to represent San Diego County at the 25th Anniversary National Earth Day Celebration in Washington DC. They were also selected to participate in the United Nations Environment Programme--Global Youth Forum. In 1994, Recycle! Kids performed at the Plenary Session in front of the White House. More than 1,500 people were in the audience, including many United Nations officials. In 1993, they were honored by the Philippine Delegation at the Plenary Session in Boulder, CO. The Recycle! Kids program is a model program for others to follow!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Military Survivors Equity Act of 1995. I would like to tell you a story, a story with an unhappy ending. A resident of my congressional district, when he retired from his service in the Armed Forces of our country, decided to have a portion of his monthly retired pay withheld in order to pay for benefits for his wife in case he died. Unfortunately, he died an untimely death, and his wife began to receive a monthly death benefit. The amount she received was 55 percent of her husband's retired pay. Imagine her astonishment when she turned 62 and found that the amount of her benefit was reduced to 35 percent of her husband's retired pay. When she inquired as to the reason, she was told that because she was eligible to get Social Security, her survivor benefits were reduced. ``But my Social Security payment is based on my own work,'' she said. ``Why is the pension that my husband paid for in any way connected to my Social Security?'' The answer: because that's the law! Well, I think it's time to change this law--a law which simply doesn't make sense. The Military Survivor Benefit Plan, called the SBP plan, is a good idea--but it is very complicated. For some, SBP benefits are reduced or offset by the amount of the military retiree's Social Security when the survivor reaches age 62-- regardless of when she actually begins to draw Social Security benefits. For others, under the newer two-tier SBP plan, like the widow in my congressional district, the benefit is automatically reduced at age 62 to 35 percent of her husband's retired military pay--a reduction of over \1/3\ from her previous benefits I believe it is time to get rid of these offsets. It is time to live up to the expectations of our military retirees, when they choose to provide for their widows after their deaths. It is time to simplify this incredibly complicated SBP system. My bill will provide an SBP death benefit equal to 55 percent of the military retiree pay. Period. No offsets. No reductions. That is what our military retirees expected. That is what their widows expected. That is what we should deliver. It is time to live up to our commitment to those who have served our Nation so honorably. It is time to correct the wrongs inflicted on their widows. It is time to restore honor to the Military Survivor Benefit Plan.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend the session on Thursday, August 3, 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: 618--``no''; 619--``yes''; 620--``yes''; 621--``no''; 622-- ``yes''; 623--``no''; 624--``yes''; 625--``yes''; 626--``no''.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, today I am introducing legislation to attack one of the most critical problems facing the residents of San Diego Country and California--illegal immigration. The Eliminating the Magnet for Illegal Immigration Act gets at the root of the problem. It will stop people from trying to cross the border in the first place by eliminating the illegal jobs that attract people to the United States. My bill finally clamps down on employers that encourage illegal immigration by violating our laws and knowingly hiring undocumented workers. In San Diego, I represent the district that runs along the border and has the most border crossing--both legal and illegal--in the world. I am acutely aware of the strain illegal immigration puts on communities in my district, and I have always been a firm believer in gaining control of our borders. In the last 2 years, we have made significant progress. We have increased the number of Border Patrol agents and have begun to give them the tools and technology to get the job done. But these changes have had limited success in stopping illegal immigration. The critical next step in the fight to stop illegal immigration is to eliminate the magnet and enforce our laws against the hiring of illegal immigrants. In 1986, Congress underscored the need to eliminate the job magnet and made it illegal to hire undocumented workers--but these laws have been largely ignored. The INS simply has not had the resources to do its job. Some employers hire undocumented workers because their status makes them easy targets for exploitation and abuse. These employers know they can force them to work in substandard conditions. These employers know they can get away with paying them substandard wages. It it any wonder that we have this problem? My legislation gives the INS the resources it needs to aggressively enforce employer sanctions and gives the Department of Labor the resources to aggressively enforce wage and hour laws. And most importantly, it directs the two agencies to combine forces and target those industries notorious for hiring undocumented workers and forcing them to work in unacceptable conditions. My bill gets tough on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers by imposing stronger sanctions and doubling those penalties against employers also caught violating labor laws. It also helps employers by reducing the number of documents workers can use to verify their eligibility. I want to fully acknowledge that there is an inherent danger that this kind of approach could lead to discrimination against workers--and evidence shows that this has indeed been the case in some instances. Thus my bill will also stiffen the penalties against employers that discriminate and give the Department of Justice the resources it needs to thoroughly investigate incidents of discrimination. We will also provide programs to educate employers about their responsibilities in this area. Finally, my bill will crack down on document fraud by increasing the civil and criminal penalties for using or manufacturing fraudulent documents. My bill takes a balanced, comprehensive approach to the problems created by illegal immigration. As a border Congressman, I am well aware of both the positive and the negative effects of immigration. And I promised myself, and the people that I represent, that we would deal with the negative impacts without retreating from the values that have made this the greatest country in the world. I challenge Congress to get past the scapegoating that has become so politically profitable. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this critically important initiative and show your commitment to truly stemming the illegal immigration that affects so many of our communities.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise today to remind us all that the future of our Nation lies with our children. We hear those words so often that they are almost a cliche--but do we listen? Do we understand what that must mean as we develop our budget priorities? As an educator, a former university professor, and a former president of the San Diego Board of Education, I am in a unique position here in Congress--I have first-hand knowledge of the importance of Federal funding to students of all ages and all communities. And I want you to know that I have serious concerns about the direction we are taking in the current budget deliberations. For example, the San Diego School District--one of the school districts in my congressional district--stands to lose a minimum of $12 million in fiscal year 1996. Although students in every school in the district will be affected, the students most in need will be hit the hardest if we vote to slash title I as is currently proposed. Schools with a high number of students and families in poverty and low achieving students will receive the deepest and most severe cuts. Title I funding helps disadvantaged children to better learn and achieve high educational standards. The proposed cuts in title I funding will devastate this program currently operating in the San Diego schools. A total of 50 schools will be eliminated from the program, and more than 11,000 children will not be served. Supplemental reading and math programs will be eliminated, as well as parental involvement activities. The very resources needed to raise student achievement and to meet the high standards we all want will be taken away. In addition, the 127,000 students served by Impact Aid, the 31,000 students served by the Bilingual Education Program, the 17,000 students served by School-to-Work funding, and the 127,000 students affected by the Safe & Drug-Free Schools funding will suffer from the $700,000 cut to Impact Aid, the $1 million cut to Bilingual Education, the $140,000 cut to School-to-Work and the $500,000 cut to Safe & Drug-Free Schools. These cuts are for one school district. Multiply that by the thousands of districts in the Nation. Perhaps the most foolish action in the bill pending before us is the cut of $137 million for Head Start. The money we spend to give our youngsters a head start makes for productive citizens and pays dividends in the future. We should be putting more money into Head Start--not less. In California, the economic decline of the past several years means that State and local economics cannot absorb the huge financial burden that will be shifted to them. The loss of instruction, the lay-offs of teachers and staff, and the lessening of the quality of education resulting from these proposed cuts cannot be replaced at the local level. The Federal Government has a role, an obligation, and a responsibility to participate in the education of our children. Our children are our future. Let us make them a priority. I urge my colleagues to do our part. Support the Federal investment in the future and reject the severe cuts proposed for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained from voting last Friday, and had I been here, I would have voted on rollcall 596 ``yes,'' rollcall 597 ``yes,'' rollcall 598 ``no,'' rollcall 599, ``yes,'' and rollcall 600 ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to bolster our Nation's crime fighting efforts and to encourage citizens to get involved in crime prevention. I am joined in this effort by Congressman Stupak, cochairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus--of which I am a member. The Taking Back Our Neighborhoods Crime Fighting Act will give a $50 tax credit to people actively involved in neighborhood watch groups and other organizations committed to the reduction of local crime. I am proposing this tax credit because neighborhood watch works. It is the most effective crime reduction program available to our communities. Throughout the country, neighborhood watch groups have made people feel safer and more secure in their homes, parks, and streets. Neighborhood watch establishes relationships among neighbors--and it establishes partnerships between neighborhoods and their police officers. Citizens are trained how to watch out for their families, monitor their neighborhoods, how to be observant and reliable witnesses, and how to assist their local police. Police chiefs and officers around the country firmly believe in neighborhood watch and have endorsed the idea of encouraging participation through tax credits. Over the last decade, in my congressional district, we have pioneered the concept of community oriented crime fighting, and we have seen the difference it makes. Serving on the San Diego Council for 5 years before I came to Congress, I worked hand in hand with residents to attack crime. We helped establish neighborhood watch groups. We went on walking patrols through the streets and created support networks among neighbors. We established drug free zones to keep dealers away from our schools. And we organized a graffiti patrol to clean up our neighborhoods and restore pride in our community. We also worked directly with local police to create innovative crime fighting strategies. We instituted walking patrols in the streets, in the schools, and in the neighborhoods. Police officers got to know the neighborhoods they protected and the people in them. They talked to residents, and residents knew exactly who to call if they saw someone in trouble. These efforts have been successful. During the last year in San Diego, we have seen a reduction of at least 10 percent in every major category of crime. [[Page E 1542]] And most importantly, we were empowered, we felt stronger, we fostered a sense of community, and we saw that we could make a difference in peoples lives. Neighborhood watch groups have proven to be an effective and economical approach to providing a better and more secure society for ourselves and our children. Giving people in neighborhood watch groups a $50 tax break will support the many citizens already involved in crime prevention and encourage more community participation. I ask my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Working together--and only by working together--can we truly start to reclaim our streets.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Medicare Program--a program that has successfully provided much-needed health care benefits to millions of older Americans. Unfortunately, there is a very dark side to this week's celebration. Medicare is under attack, and the new majority threatens to make deep and dangerous cuts in this critical program. Their disdain for the Medicare system is not new. These are the same uncaring folks who 30 years ago claimed that Medicare was socialized medicine. The same people who fought every expansion of the program. The same people who last year, given the chance to save our health care system, said there was no crisis. And now, the new majority has targeted Medicare to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy. In return, 37 million seniors--people who have worked hard, paid their taxes all their life--will see their Medicare benefits slashed and their quality of care eroded. Dipping into Medicare to make up for an unrelated tax cut is quite simply an outrage. Medicare is a sacred compact with America's seniors--not a fiscal candy jar. Next year when we celebrate Medicare's anniversary, I want to be able to look seniors straight in the eye and say ``yes, we have kept our word, and we have honored the compact we made with you.'' I know I'll keep my promise and I hope a new, new majority will do the same.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows I strongly support H.R. 1943. But as I said in the committee that considered the substance of his recommittal motion, I thought that this would give a lot of security to people to vote for this bill who have some concerns that San Diego would backslide. I do not believe that that would be the case. San Diego has said in its waiver application, has said in time after time, that it meets these standards that the gentleman has in his recommittal motion, so San Diego, I agree, will not be having to do anything more than it is doing now and would have no extra expense, but would give people who have concerns the ability to vote for this legislation. I would ask for my colleagues in this bipartisan way to accept this motion because it allows everybody to say, yes, San Diego will meet these things without any additional concerns. So I think H.R. 1943 is strengthened by the gentleman's motion, and I will be supporting it.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, that requirement makes a lot of sense.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure I submitted an amendment, which he has in his recommittal motion, which will in fact help this bill meet some of the problems that some of my colleagues have by requiring certain standards that we already meet that we are pledged to do, that will require no extra expense. I think that makes this bill stronger when it goes to the Senate and when it goes to the President.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1943. Let me stress that this has been a bipartisan effort, both in San Diego, where the request originated, and in this Congress, where I hope a bipartisan coalition will pass this legislation today. Without this legislation, San Diegans would be forced to pay billions of dollars to meet a bureaucratic requirement that makes no sense, given San Diego's geographic position and technological method of treating sewage. This has been a long fight for me personally. In fact, I have spent more than 6 years fighting against this nonsensical requirement. I was one of the first members of the San Diego city council who was convinced by the testimony of marine scientists from the world-renowned Scripps Institute of Oceanography that San Diego was already doing the right thing for the environment. One of the first bills that I introduced in 1993 as a freshman in the 103d Congress was H.R. 3190, which is very similar to the bill we are discussing today. And in late 1994 in the 103d Congress, my colleagues in the Congress unanimously passed my legislation to allow San Diego to apply for a waiver from the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Speaker, that bill allowed San Diego to apply for a waiver from the Clean Water Act's secondary treatment standards. I am proud to state that that application has been submitted and, because it was based on sound science, it has already received preliminary approval by the EPA. We have no doubt that this application will soon receive final approval. But we are here today to take the necessary next step; that is to remove the requirement that San Diego reapply for that waiver every 5 years. I want to ensure that San Diego is not required to spend millions of taxpayer dollars every 5 years to reapply for a waiver, or that it run the risk that some EPA administrator in the future, as it has in the past, may reject the waiver application and force San Diego into a wasteful transformation of its sewage treatment system. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about this legislation, but I want to reassure all of my colleagues that San Diego will still have to meet the basic environmental mandates of the Clean Water Act and that no damage to the marine environment will result. This bill requires that San Diego comply with one of the most restrictive State ocean plans, California's ocean plan, which stipulates a minimum of 75 percent suspended solids removal. The California State ocean plan, which has been approved by the national EPA, includes a list of standards for specific chemicals that is more restrictive than Clean Water Act standards. These standards will apply, despite the fact that San Diego's ocean outfall is 4 miles out to sea, and therefore outside of the 3-mile jurisdiction of the State, because H.R. 1943 would require that the city of San Diego apply to the State of California and EPA for an NPDES permit ever 5 years. Because of this permit requirement, I have no doubt that the EPA will hold San Diego to State of California ocean plan standards. Finally, at the request of the marine scientists from the Scripps Institute, this bill will require San Diego to continue its comprehensive ocean monitoring system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is the right thing to do for both the environment and the taxpayers of San Diego. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, finally, that the protections in this bill to require San Diego to meet the California State ocean plan and to submit to the comprehensive ocean monitoring system will protect against some of the fears that my colleagues have. This means that San Diego will not only measure the quality of the effluent that is entering the ocean outfall but, more importantly, it will conduct a thorough assessment of the effects of the effluent on the marine environment. This monitoring system will be evaluated in turn not only by State and Federal agencies, but will be made available for review by the best marine scientists in the world, the experts that work at Scripps.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their participation. I look forward to working with them to make this happen. I would like to just point out to the Chair that for the $10 million appropriations that would leverage $200 million worth of loan guarantees, we can open a $7 million rail line, with $7 million we can open a rail line from Campo to El Centro in California. As Mr. LaHood stated, for $11 million we can guarantee to preserve and improve rural freight service on the Toledo, Peoria and Western. We can, for $3 million, guarantee a project for rehabilitation of a bridge over the Ohio River. For $13 million, we can make capital improvements and debt restructuring for projects in Maine and New Hampshire; $10 million will guarantee a project to improve service in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan; $30 million beyond will make sure that the State of Missouri gets short line railroad improvements. We heard about what $5 million can do for the Siskiyou Summit rail line in Oregon, and finally $10 million would guarantee track rehabilitation in western South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I think these are worthwhile projects. I know the chairman will be looking at possible funding of this. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent for withdrawing my amendment but I want to engage the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation in a brief colloquy about a critical component of our Nation's infrastructure--our regional and short line railroads. I am joined in this effort to highlight the importance of the section 511 Loan Guarantee Program by colleagues in various regions of our Nation. We believe that the section 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee Program is a wise investment in our infrastructure. This loan guarantee program is authorized under section 511 of the Railroad Revitalization Act of 1976. Historically, our investment in road and highways, airports, seaports, and railroads has been responsible for creating the most advanced and efficient economy in the history of the world. The 511 program can help an important segment of our transportation system that has been largely left out of infrastructure investment programs. A very modest investment of about 5 percent of a total loan amount is all that is required of the Government to guarantee these loans. An appropriation of $10 million will, therefore, generate a $200 million investment in our railroads. The program also contains no earmarks. Small rail lines throughout America--lines such as the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad--will be able to apply for these loans to rebuild important infrastructure. These section 511 loan guarantees represent the type of public/ private partnership this Congress should encourage. For a small investment, we can rehabilitate important rail lines, ease congestion, and provide jobs. Best of all, these are not grants-- they are loans which will be repaid. The repayment history on this program is excellent. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from Virginia would join me in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, many of our regional and short line railroad lines--which are still a vital element of our commercial infrastructure--often find it difficult to obtain private financing for rail line improvements. These private loans are either short-term or their interest rates are too high to make this type of investment prohibitive. I believe that the Section 511 program--because it is a loan program that must be repaid, and because it is leveraged at 20-to- 1--is precisely the type of infrastructure investment program that this Congress should promote.

Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman would favorably consider appropriating funds for this program, if the Senate includes funding for Section 511 railroad loan guarantees in their bill.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood].

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating a tragic event--Turkey's military invasion of the Republic of Cyprus in July 1974. But I think we all agree that the even greater tragedy is the fact that 21 years later, Turkey's illegal occupation of northern Cyprus remains in place and the suffering of the people of Cyprus continues. Driven from their homes and villages, brutalized, and denied information as to the fate of over 1,600 loved ones missing since the invasion, the people of Cyprus have patiently cooperated with international negotiators--for 21 years) in the hopes of securing a peaceful coexistence. Mr. Speaker, Greek-Americans in San Diego and across the United States also share in the agony created by the occupation of Cyprus. They agonize about mission friends and family, the destruction of the Greek Cypriot culture and the denial of access to ancestral homelands now occupied by the Turkish Army. These people have suffered too long. [[Page H 7167]] And so, together with the Greek-American community, I urge Congress and the administration to adopt a far more active role in pressing the Turkish Government to withdraw its troops from Cyprus, end the human rights abuses there and provide a full accounting of those who are missing. It is time we let Turkey know that a peaceful resolution to this crisis is tragically overdue.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as part of a strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment which would delete the funding for the GT-MHR Development Program. I have heard the opponents to this program argue that it is a pork project, that it is an example of corporate welfare. They have said that this pork has cost the taxpayers $900 million. Well, let us set the record straight. Approximately $900 million has been appropriated from taxpayers' money to be spent on high temperature gas cooled reactor technology. But this expenditure has been a sound public investment for the following reasons. We have had in fact a sound public investment for these reasons: Number one, an amount substantially equal to the taxpayers' $900 million has also been invested by private industry in the high- temperature gas-cooled reactor technology. This is the kind of government and industry partnership we want for research and development to advance promising technologies. These funds together have permitted the design, development, and construction of two demonstration plants, permitted the gas-cooled reactor to be selected by the Department of Energy as a new production reactor, and provided the brood technology base which allows a GT-MHR project to proceed. Second, much of the taxpayers' $900 million has gone to our national laboratories who are involved in research and development. At present, there are four prime contractors and several subcontractors involved in this technology. GT-MHR research and development is being performed throughout the country by several government laboratories and private companies. The prime beneficiary is our country. Third, the breakthrough achieved by the GT-MHR provides high prospects--higher I am told than ever before--that there will be an investment payoff. Its safety, low cost, low environmental impact, and high proliferation resistance make it an ideal candidate for helping to meet the future electricity requirements which will provide jobs, an export product, and a technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The gas-cooled reactor was one of the two technologies selected in an exhaustive evaluation for development as a new production reactor and was evaluated to be the most cost-effective alternative. The project was deferred at the end of the cold war because of a lack of immediate need. However, the Department of Energy is now in position of having to identify a new tritium supply source and is in the process of spending significant additional taxpayers' dollars re-looking at tritium production alternatives. Why is this effort being performed again when it was evaluated less than 10 years ago? This is the kind of thing that should be examined to avoid wasting taxpayers' dollars. The GT-MHR breakthrough is a result of the foresight which went into past congressional actions on this technology, but it is imperative that the research and development be seen through to completion. To stop it now would really be a waste of the investment. Worse yet, another country may step forward and capitalize on our investment. We cannot let that happen. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. [[Page H 6802]]

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I want to share with you the insights of John E. Warren, editor and publisher of the San Diego Voice & Viewpoint, an African-American newspaper published in my hometown. In a recent editorial, Warren wrote: As America appears to be gearing up to make affirmative action the new symbol for the age old attack on the idea of equality and fairness for Blacks in this country, first, then all other groups but White males, it is extremely important that the Black response be one of reason, power, and direct results. While it is fine to pen letters and speeches of response to the Pete Wilsons who would ride the horse of bigotry and racism into the U.S. Presidency if permitted, those letters and speeches must not become substitutes for direct action. The well known question is then asked: ``What can African- Americans do to reach the moral conscious of an increasingly White America that appears to think it has done too much for too many who said things were not fair and now think that fairness is becoming an inconvenience as times get harder in a changing economy?'' Perhaps the key can be found in the paraphrase of a very old proverb ``he who controls himself is better than he who controls nations.'' Blacks continue to spend billions of dollars in every facet of the American economy with no economic demand for returns on our investments. We spend $300 billion dollars a year collectively and we are begging a nation and its leaders to treat us ``morally right'' when we have not assumed the ``moral responsibility'' for ourselves. African-Americans must remember that this country is now following a contract on America instead of the U.S. Constitution which Wade Henderson of the NAACP rightly called ``our contract with America.'' Consider that African-Americans have a vote, but most won't bother to use it. We have disposable income for clothes, too many of which are designed for our youth as gang attire, but we don't make these clothes. We buy new cars all over San Diego--many of which are the same as the ones sold by our one Black owned car dealership, but purchased from people who neither care for us or our communities. We buy liquor, cigarettes, potato chips, butter and toilet tissue in larger numbers than any other ethnic group and make no demands in return. Some of those very people who benefit from our care-free spending habits use those same dollars to buy political votes across this nation that are now focused against our common good--the right to a job based on fairness and merit, the right to social insurance in time of need, the right to food, shelter and education, not based on the color of our skin but the status of our birth as American citizens. Perhaps if we went on a selective spending spree where we truly examine how much we spend and what we spend it for, America might rediscover that the issue is not affirmative action after all but one of spending our dollars in such a way that our adversaries will be glad to support us. We have almost 300 Black owned newspapers in America, yet too many of us would rather get our news from CSPAN or USA Today. The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint believes that when we harness our votes, the Pete Wilsons of the nation will be closed out of Presidential politics, no matter how much money and bigotry they have. When we harness our dollars, companies that don't hire us or advertise in our newspapers will be forced to make decisions about whether they need our market share. When we harness our spending, and make our styles the internal commitment to ourselves and our people rather than external fashions, we will affect the American economy. When we harness ourselves the NAACP will have enough money in one, five, ten, twenty and fifty dollar donations to move in 30 days to the position of a financially debt free and sufficient organization to fight for ``colored people.'' When we harness our ability to focus beyond knee jerk reactions to things we hear, we will turn off the vulgar television and radio and CD sounds daily bombarding our very souls and return to the God of our silent tears and of our parents' weary years to find new hope not in what they call us or say about us, but in what we do for ourselves and each other. Yes, there is a backlash against affirmative action that now reaches to the Supreme Court, but by the power of God almighty, we have not even begun to use our powers of reason, our available economic response and the identification of desired results. Our future is in our hands. The real question is: ``African-Americans, what will you personally do as a response to this latest attack?''