Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 363, a bill that would increase the Federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.50 an hour, and equally important, automatically adjust the wage up or down annually as indexed for inflation. Historically, our Nation's lowest wage earning positions were reserved for new immigrants and the young. Both of these groups, especially with increased education, could expect to advance in our society. But as Bob Dylan used to sing, ``the times, they are a changin.'' Indeed, the times are changing. No longer are the lowest paying jobs occupied solely by the young and uneducated; they are held by parents, seniors, students supporting themselves, and millions of other Americans. The minimum wage labor force has drastically changed over the past decade. What was once a mere passageway to the ``American Dream,'' minimum wage jobs have become a permanent way of life for an increasing number of citizens. Today, nearly 50 percent of working Americans earn the minimum wage. Not only do many of these working people have college diplomas and master's degrees--but most have to support families on their minimum wage. Now, more than ever, we need to pass legislation that will allow working Americans to earn a real and meaningful income. We have all heard the arguments that unemployment and inflation will increase with a higher minimum wage. These arguments are completely unfounded, as shown by study after study done in a wide variety of areas that have increased their minimum wage. A higher minimum wage stimulates our economy because it allows more consumer needs to be met. Each day that the minimum wage remains at its current low level, the real buying power of that wage decreases. In order for workers to remain above the poverty level, they would have to be earning over $6 an hour. Do we want to condemn so many working people to poverty? Mr. Speaker, hard working Americans deserve the security and stability that come with being able to provide for oneself and one's family. Let's raise the minimum wage, let's index it automatically for inflation, and let's give every working American the promise for a better tomorrow.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, I rise today to speak against the cuts this budget resolution inflicts on the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. While we all support sound and responsible spending, the cuts to the FAA budget are neither. The result of these cuts will give us skies that are more crowded, equipment that is older, air traffic control personnel that are even more overworked, and air travel that is more dangerous. While air traffic has grown more than 6 percent over the last 2 years, the FAA budget experienced a real decline of 6 percent--that's a $600 million decrease. The budget resolution conference agreement cuts an additional $10 billion from transportation spending, cuts which will jeopardize the safety and efficiency of the aviation system proposed by the President. Under this budget proposal--a safe and efficient aviation system for the nation will be dramatically jeopardized. The FAA's ability to improve weather safety equipment and to prevent accidents would be compromised. Introduction of satellite navigation technology would be delayed at least 5 years, costing air carriers millions of dollars per year in efficiencies. The FAA would be less able to respond to domestic and international terrorism. Security specialists would be cut by one-third, ending the FAA's ability to assure compliance with security regulations to provide on-site monitoring and to assist air carriers experiencing major terrorist threats. We need look no further than the current pall of fear that hangs over Los Angeles International airport to imagine the likely effect of security cutbacks. The FAA would no longer be able to certify new aircraft, engines, or parts. These responsibilities would be transferred to private interests. All FAA international offices would be closed, eliminating FAA's international presence for safety, security, and certification functions and undermining our goal of ensuring U.S. passenger safety worldwide. Research into better methods of protecting passengers from inflight and post-crash fires would end altogether. From fiscal year 1995 to 2002, the work force of air traffic controllers and flight service technicians would be reduced 44 percent--despite a 34-percent increase in the number of passengers and a 17-percent increase in commercial operations. Flight service stations and control towers would be closed to the detriment of general aviation and small communities. Hundreds of communities in all 50 States would lose jobs and air traffic services. And, almost 105,000 flights would be delayed annually, at a cost to carriers and passengers that exceeds $2.3 billion. Equipment-related delays--caused by funding shortfalls for new technology and skilled maintenance technicians--would rise dramatically from 4,000 to 50,000 per year, and additional operating costs would grow for carriers and passengers. We are all aware of the desperate need to guarantee 100 percent safety for the flying public. We are too familiar with the tragic consequences when that safety is compromised. Mr. Speaker, we all benefit from the FAA's ability to provide safe and timely travel--let's not jeopardize that by approving this budget resolution. I urge my colleagues to keep the skies friendly--and safe-- and reject this budget resolution.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1565, legislation to renew our obligation to provide medical treatment for veterans suffering from exposure to agent orange. Between 1962 and 1971, the military forces of the United States used 11.2 million gallons of agent orange and 8 million gallons of other herbicides in Vietnam, in order to strip the thick jungle that concealed the opposition forces. Most of these spraying operations were completed using airplanes and helicopters, but herbicides were also sprayed from the ground by soldiers with back-mounted equipment. After a scientific report in 1969 concluded that one of the primary chemicals used in agent orange could cause birth defects in laboratory animals, U.S. forces suspended use of this herbicide--and stopped all herbicide spraying the following year. But thousands of soldiers had already been exposed to this chemical for months at a time. Today, many of these soldiers have a significantly higher rate of diseases and death than those who did not go to Vietnam. Since the end of the Vietnam war, a growing body of evidence has connected several diseases to agent orange. I join a truly bipartisan effort in urging support for this bill. We can do no less for the brave men and women who answered their country's call to fight in an unpopular war. They came home to find that jobs were hard to come by, as was emotional support for the terrors they had experienced. No hero's welcome for these veterans. Today, I would also like to recognize the work of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Lane Evans. Without his perseverance, it is unlikely that we would be voting on this legislation today--and it is unlikely that thousands of Vietnam veterans would be receiving the health care that they need and deserve. I also want to acknowledge the work of Chairman Bob Stump and ranking member Sonny Montgomery of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as well as the entire committee. This bill is the latest in a long line of bills crafted in a truly bipartisan manner for the good of our veterans. Whatever our views on the Vietnam war, we must all help to heal its wounds--and these are few wounds greater than those suffered from the effects of agent orange. These veterans had to wait for decades to receive recognition and medical care. We must not make them wait again.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the community of San Ysidro in recognition of San Ysidro Neighborhood History Day. Its official name, ``San Ysidro,'' was given in 1909 by a group of people who came to live in the valley and founded a small agricultural colony named after Saint Isidro--the patron saint of field laborers and agriculture. In 1957, San Ysidro was incorporated to the city of San Diego. Today, in 1995, because it is California and San Deigo's gateway to Mexico and Latin America, San Ysidro plays a major role in the development of San Diego. The success of this unique community is an example of what happens when people take pride in their neighborhood--a community made up of friends and families that work hard every day for the betterment of the residents and especially the children. San Ysidro Neighborhood History Day was celebrated with exhibits about the history of San Ysidro, the unveiling of murals by the children of San Ysidro, and a theatrical performance. I have been working with the community of San Ysidro since my days on the San Diego City Council to help the community foster pride in its diversity and culture. I was proud to participate with the community in recognizing San Ysidro Neighborhood History Day.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, for more than 14 years, Californians have enjoyed protection from the dangers of offshore oil drilling. It is imperative that the moratorium on offshore oil drilling be extended permanently. This is an issue on which all Californians agree: First, local, State, and Federal elected officials support the ban: I have been contacted by Governor Wilson, our representatives in the State legislature, and our local city councils in support of extending the ban. Second, business and environmentalist leaders support the ban: at a recent press conference in San Diego, business, environmental, and tourism officials came together to indicate their support for the permanent extension of the ban on offshore oil drilling. Third, the voters of San Diego agree: in 1986, more than 75 percent of San Diegans voted in favor of a ban on offshore oil drilling within 100 miles of our coast. Our key concern is the devastation that oil drilling would cause to San Diego's $3.6 billion-a-year tourism industry! Quite frankly, the small amount of oil that some people guess is available in our kelp beds is simply not worth the damage to our economy that offshore oil drilling would cause. We all know--no matter how careful we are--accidents happen. We cannot--we will not--accept the risk of offshore oil drilling so that a few large oil companies can add to their wealth. We will not allow the economic and environmental damage caused in Santa Barbara, Prince William Sound, or the Gulf of Mexico to be repeated anywhere on California's coast. We urge this Congress to act now and protect California's economy and beauty--extend the ban on offshore oil drilling permanently.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to honor a great friend, veteran, business entrepreneur, and civic leader who passed away on June 2, 1995--Rick Diaz Chantengco. Rick was a living proof of just how fine a person can be! His life exemplified kindness and inspired emulation. His untimely departure brought emptiness to places which he filled with energy and enthusiasm in the Filipino-American community. In 1957, Rick enlisted in the submarine force of the U.S. Navy in which he served during the Bay of Pigs Conflict, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam war. In 1969, he was a Chief Petty Officer when he received an honorable medical discharge. Rick graduated from San Diego City College with a Bachelors Degree in Business and Real Estate Law in 1969. Armed with his military experience and knowledge in real estate business, he founded Chantengco Realty, serving as president and broker. He also was the board chairman of the Pacific Rim Century, a hotel real estate investment corporation. Rick used his expertise to help the community in which he lived. He assisted in the purchase of a permanent building for the Union of Pan Asian Communities, the largest social service agency in San Diego County. He was the founder and charter member of the Filipino-American Democratic Club of San Diego County, the first such Filipino club in California. He organized and chaired fund-raising campaigns for numerous candidates for political offices. We all come across a small number of special people, those who touch our minds, hearts, and souls with their optimism and dedication to making everyone's life richer. Rick was one of those chosen few who won the respect and admiration of his family, friends, and community for his unwavering commitment to hard work, community involvement, and a sincere belief that one person can make a difference. This world needs more people like Rick Diaz Chantengco, who will be sorely missed. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Tess, and his children, J.R., Jacqueline, and Jeanne. According to Rick's son, J.R. de Jesus Chantengco, he wanted to be remembered in the following way: As a father, one you can always look up to and rely on. He must lead a very full and God-fearing life. He must set a good example to his wife, his children, and his friends. As a friend, one who never asks for accolades but through his actions, many people will respect him. As a business colleague, one who was charged with authority and the highest ethical standards. As a professional, one who has always strived to be the best and whose business motto is Service is Our Business. And as a person, one who continually helped others unselfishly, strived for social and political justice, and did them with much enthusiasm. He wants to be remembered as the man who measures his success by how proud he is of the success of his children; by the most supportive and loving wife he will always have, and by the many friends' lives he has enriched by his helping hand and his caring smile.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, newspapers across the country last week reported a story that this Congress and the Clinton administration have known for several years--the Federal Government is losing almost $2 billion annually because of a flaw in the tax policy. The analysis, prepared by a team of investigative reporters from the Associated Press [AP], concluded that a powerful political lobby has succeeded in blocking all attempts to close this unintended loophole. I ask unanimous consent to reproduce this report in the Congressional Record. The political lobby cited by the AP story is the mutual life insurance industry. The industry says they have been assured by Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, according to AP, that Congress isn't ``looking to advance anything.'' At a time when Congress is supposedly examining every program for possible cutbacks and savings, we should not put any spending item-- including unintended tax loopholes--off limits from scrutiny. My colleagues should be aware that Senator Bob Dole recently stated on ``Meet the Press'' that closing loopholes is not considered a tax increase--but merely a correction. The unintended loophole in Federal tax policy identified by the AP story in section 809, a provision included in 1984 amendments to the U.S. Tax Code. The Ways and Means Committee acknowledged in 1989 that section 809 had backfired and tried to fix the problem. As reported by AP, ``After months of hearings and debate, lawmakers caved to the insurance lobby, with--the committee--asking the industry to devise its own tax plan.'' No industry recommendations have been forthcoming. My own investigations suggest the yearly loss of revenues from section 809 is nearly $2 billion, a staggering amount of money. Rather than cut food programs for school children and hungry families, Congress should use these funds to reduce the Federal deficit. Representative Helen Chenoweth and I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1497, to repeal section 809, a bill to restore tax fairness and close an unintended loophole. The Congress is proposing to ask every American to share in the effort to control spending, and to share the pain from downsizing the Federal Government. Everyone should be expected to contribute to this effort, including mutual life insurance companies which now escape their fair share of the tax burden. Mr. Speaker, the independent voice of the Associated Press has revealed in this article that this $2 billion loophole exists and is being used by a handful of the country's largest mutual insurance companies. I hope the Ways and Means Committee will hold hearings on this situation and approve the legislation Congresswoman Chenoweth and I have proposed to correct it. Because no other major media outlet has delved into this national scandal, the AP story is reprinted below: When Insurance Tax Backfired, Congress Passed Buck (By David Morris and John Solomon) Washington.--Congressman Bob Filner wants to put billions of extra dollars in the U.S. Treasury, but he is having trouble finding people to take up his cause. The California Democrat has introduced legislation designed to close a loophole in federal tax law that allows mutual life insurance companies to avoid paying at least $1 billion in additional taxes each year. The legislation, similar to his bill that stalled in the last session of Congress, appears likely to be blocked again by the politically savvy insurance lobby. The problem is not new. For six years, top officials in Congress and at the White House have known that an earlier law intended to increase taxes on the mutual companies backfired. Instead of raising additional tax dollars, documents obtained by The Associated Press show the 1984 law unwittingly gave mutual companies a new deduction that wiped out most of the intended increase. ``We compromised away too much,'' said Rep. Pete Stark, D- Calif., a frequent critic of the insurance industry and an architect of the 1984 plan. Accounting studies show the mutual insurance companies which include such insurance giants as Prudential and Metropolitan Life, pay taxes at half the rate of stockholder-owned insurers 10.8 percent versus 22 percent. The disparity was supposed to be corrected through an additional tax on the mutuals, which are owned by their policyholders. The catch came in a provision of the 1984 formula that allowed the mutuals to deduct capital gains. Congress expected the deduction to be minimal, since mutuals had reported less than $100 million in capital gains between 1979 and 1984. But the mutuals changed their accounting, declaring nearly $15 billion in capital gains over the next five years. With encouragement from the Bush administration, Congress tried to fix the problem in 1989. But after months of hearings and debate, lawmakers caved to the insurance lobby, with then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski asking the industry to devise its own tax plan. That, Stark scolded, ``was like putting them on a steak and ice cream diet and telling them to get their cholesterol and fat down.'' The industry convened a study group, but eventually abandoned the effort. Filner's bill also appears unlikely to solve the problem. He has only one co-sponsor, while the mutual industry apparently has locked up a powerful commitment to keep the bill back. Carroll Campbell, a former South Carolina governor who now heads the American Council of life Insurance, said he recently received assurances from Republican Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer that bills to raise taxes were ``non- starters.'' Archer declined an interview. Ted Groom, a spokesman for the mutual side of the industry, said the system is already unfair. He contends that changing the law to collect more taxes would drive mutual companies out of business. ``We are currently overtaxed,' he said in an interview. Still, study after study by independent agencies has shown that the 1984 law backfired, and that giant mutual companies were benefiting the most. One 1989 Treasury Department study said the law was supposed to generate $5.2 billion from the mutual insurance industry from 1984 to 1986, but had fallen $2.4 billion short. Other estimates put the shortfall as high as $2 billion a year. Most large mutual companies have entirely offset the amount of new taxes they were supposed to pay. Some even claim the formula left them with a negative tax bill, and one company has sued to get the money back from the government. The government's expert witness in that case estimates that if the company wins, mutual companies could get refunds of up to $5 billion. For years, the mutual companies have argued that the official figures indicating they were paying a low tax rate were erroneous. But they have failed to offer proof. This year, the industry apparently changed its tack, acknowledging the 809 section worked in its favor in the early years. But mutual companies also point to a 1995 analysis by Moody's Investors Service, which predicts the industry will see a sharp increase in taxes this year because a poor year gave them fewer capital gains to deduct. Girding for a new fight in Congress, insurers donated an estimated $25 million to the national parties and congressional candidates in the past two elections. They also have hired some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, including Thomas J. Downey, a former member of the House Ways and Means Committee. As the lobbyists lined up in opposition, Filner tried to get help from the Clinton administration, which has declared war on ``corporate welfare.'' But the administration has refused to take a position on the tax measure.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment designated as number 80 which is a combination of amendments submitted by Congressman Bilbray and myself, to restore funding required by the International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC] to operate a critical sewage treatment facility soon to be completed in San Diego. As many of you know, we are building a critically-needed $240 million under construction and will soon be completed. It is imperative that we provide the funds necessary to operate this treatment plant--and that we fulfill our commitment to the thousands of American citizens who suffer from the raw sewage that flows downhill from Mexico through our community and contaminates the Tijuana River and our beaches. This sewage is more than a nuisance, it is a health hazard! While this is only a minor technical correction in the context of the State Department's overall budget, this amendment is critical for the IBWC to operate the soon-to-be-completed sewage treatment facility. Our failure to operate this facility would present a serious health threat to San Diego and threaten our Nation's ability to fulfill an international treaty obligation. The failure of the federal government to operate this facility, after it is built, would be the height of absurdity--and would mark a tragic new day in our Nation's history, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan, Filner-Bilbray amendment!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. The 10 largest mutual insurance companies in this Nation pay virtually zero taxes under a certain provision of the Tax Code, section 809. They do not pay zero taxes, but they pay zero on this provision, which was set up to realize, and let me tell you this number, it was set up to realize $2 billion of revenue per year, per year, $2 billion. That is virtually zero out of this provision of the Tax Code because after it was written their accountants went to work and figured out if they changed their accounting system on paper, they could drive their tax obligation down to zero. I have a bill in to remedy that situation that should be part of any balanced-budget effort. It happens to be H.R. 1497, introduced with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], and others who have helped me on this. It is called the Insurance Tax Fairness and Small Insurance Company Economic Growth Act of 1995. But what it does is exactly what you were talking about so eloquently earlier. It says let us not focus in on the children, let us not focus in on the older people that give them some dignity and some ability to participate in this society. Let us go after those who can afford it who have been leaving out their contribution, their fair contribution to the American society, and let us go after them. That will get the budget balanced and that is where our efforts should be focused. I say to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], his insistence on this and his absolute dedication on this is something that we all admire. We are going to work with him to make that happen, and let us keep the focus on yes, a balanced budget, but let us make it fair, let us close the corporate tax loopholes, and let us see that those people, make sure that those people who should pay, pay fairly.

Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman. I really appreciate the statements that the gentleman has been making this afternoon and his insistence absolutely that we have a balanced budget that puts people first, and his absolute focus in his earlier remarks that corporate welfare is something that we have to look at far more in a disciplined way if we are going to balance the budget. We as Democrats agree that the budget can be balanced, but we want to focus in on the corporate welfare and the revenue that is really not realized in this. I would like to give if I may a specific example of this to try to bring really home what this corporate welfare means to this budget and what we could be doing as a Congress. Did you know that the 10 largest mutual insurance companies in this Nation pay virtually zero taxes on a large segment of their income because they have found a loophole in the tax laws that drives their taxes to zero? About 10 years ago the Congress of the United States passed a law or passed a provision of the Tax Code that was to provide fair taxation of our giant insurance industry.

Mr. FILNER. Then those defense firms bill the Pentagon for savings that have come out and they get big grants for the savings that occurred in that consolidation, their corporate executives get major bonuses, and the people in San Diego or other communities have lost their jobs and no job training funds and no impact on community funds have come back to our community. So again, you have been emphasizing that. We as a Congress have got not only to plug those corporate welfare loopholes but to make sure that the people, the working people who fought that cold war, who fought and in a sense won it, are now losing their jobs as this consolidation occurs, and our own Defense Department is rewarding those firms for laying off those workers. That is what we have to change too. So again I appreciate your efforts and we are going to keep working with you on that.

Mr. FILNER. The gentleman's constituents are from New York, my constituents from San Diego, have got to get that message again and again. They have the power to help change the equation on this political battle that is looming. The people must be heard from. Let me also say to my colleague, we in San Diego have been prospering certainly during the eighties, had been prospering on the defense budget. You pointed out that the working people who were involved in that effort are the ones that are now getting hurt first, getting hurt first as we downsize the defense industry to some degree. consolidations have occurred, jobs have been lost, jobs have been moved out of San Diego.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to urge this Congress to make a major reinvestment in communities hit hardest by the downsizing of America's defense industry. San Diego is home to a highly skilled and productive work force. A generation of these talented defense workers helped to establish California's dominance in the defense and aerospace industry. Now defense workers in communities like San Diego are watching their jobs disappear--not only because of relaxing world tensions--but also because our own Department of Defense is helping to subsidize their transfer to other cities. Last year, my district saw the relocation of Martin Marietta's Space Systems Division to Denver--with a net loss of 1,800 jobs for my community. But the worst part about this situation is that our own U.S. Air Force rewrote a contract and paid Martin Marietta a $30 million subsidy to help transfer these jobs out of San Diego and out of California. To make matters worse, just last month the Defense Department gave away another $31 million of taxpayer money to the top executives of Martin Marietta and Lockheed. What did our Defense Department give to those defense workers in San Diego that lost their jobs? Absolutely nothing. To correct this gross injustice, I recently introduced H.R. 702, the Displaced Workers Defense Act of 1995. My legislation is very simple: It would require that any cost savings realized by the Federal Government under a defense contract that causes job losses in communities be returned to that community--to help create new jobs and to retrain displaced defense workers so they can take advantage of these new job opportunities. We must stop this giveaway of taxpayer funds to wealthy corporations. We must use our scarce resources to help those defense workers that have worked so hard to make America great. Please join me in this effort to protect our defense workers from being left behind in our changing economy. Join me in supporting H.R. 702, the Displaced Workers Defense Act of 1995.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for producing this budget. It is a budget for all Americans and we all thank you for it. This budget puts people first. It has been said that the moral test of a government is what it does for those who are in the dawn of life, that is its children, those in the sunset of life, its elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, its sick and its disabled. The Republican budget fails this moral test. The Payne-Owens budget passes this test with flying colors. My colleagues, let us support a budget that does, in fact, put people first. Let us support a budget for the caring majority. Let us vote yes on the Payne-Owens substitute.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. I am filled both with awe and with sadness today. I am indeed awed by the tenacity, the discipline, and the enthusiasm of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Their zeal and determination in their quest for a balanced budget must be admired. But I am also saddened. Would that they were a bit more compassionate, less greedy, more even-handed, less protective of special interests in their budget. Let us take a closer look at this budget they are proposing. Cuts for students from preschool through college, cuts for veterans, cuts for seniors, cuts for arts and culture, cuts for farmers, cuts for the working poor, cuts for middle-income Americans. Cuts for everyone except the wealthy and special interests. Take one example: It seems that veterans--yes, our Nations' veterans--have been singled out for cuts beyond those proposed for other major national programs. I fail to understand how we can repay the very people who fought for our country with massive cuts to the medical care and benefits they were promised. Veterans Secretary Jesse Brown estimates that this budget will eliminate treatment for 1 million veterans a year and will require the closure of almost 40 hospitals. And, maybe saddest of all, it will cut programs to help homeless veterans get back into jobs and productive lives. Another example: Of the programs targeted for elimination, over half are in education--from the smallest Cabinet Department which receives only 2 percent of the Federal budget. In fact, the Department of Education itself is scheduled for elimination under this proposal. Do we care about our children? Don't we know that a good education is the key to a good life? Several million students will lose access to educational opportunities beyond high school due to reductions in Federal scholarship and grant programs. And with the elimination of the in- school interest exemption, the debt burden for students with loans could rise 20 to 50 percent. This resolution attempts to control Medicare spending when it is widely acknowledged that Medicare can only be fixed in the context of overall health care reform. If this budget resolution becomes law, the result will be higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher deductibles for senior citizens under Medicare. Already, many seniors are choosing between food and medicine, heat and in-home nursing care. In addition, reducing the Federal Government's COLA formula is a back-door way of cutting Social Security benefits. Lower and middle-income Americans seem not to count in this budget. By contrast, the wealthiest Americans and corporations not only are spared the wrath but are rewarded with tax cuts. We do not have to cut programs that are the heart of what our country stands for in order to balance the budget. I recently introduced legislation to close a glaring loophole for a few giant mutual life insurance companies. Do you know that these companies have been paying no tax on earnings from business activity since approximately 1986? My bill, cosponsored by Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth, would reduce the deficit and, at the same time, require no new funding, attack no one's programs, and raise no new taxes. What it does is close a $2 billion loophole--that is $2 billion per year. Closing this loophole would require only that these companies pay their fair share--and, at the same time, the Nation's small insurance companies would be helped by our efforts and would receive significant tax relief. I cannot in good conscience vote to slash money from the earned- income tax credit which says that if you work, you should not have to live in poverty. I cannot in good conscience vote to slash low-income heating subsidies, Head Start, college loans, veterans' health care-- when $2 billion corporate loopholes exist. If we pass this budget, we will be trading one deficit for another-- we will produce a deficit of compassion, a deficit of spirit. As a country, we are losing our soul. We will be telling our children, you don't matter. We will be telling our seniors, you don't matter. We will be telling students and veterans, you don't matter. We will be telling hard-working, middle- class Americans, you don't matter. I would say to my fellow colleagues that we all do matter. I urge you to vote against this budget resolution.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I am certainly supporting it as the section in the bill that applies to San Diego.

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

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

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to thank the chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for understanding the issues for San Diego, for helping us last year get our waiver, and for guaranteeing a success this year.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, not to beat a dead horse or a dead sewage system, as the case may be, I do rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. This amendment raises the possibility that San Diego will be forced to waste, yes, waste, billions of dollars to change a sewage system that this Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, a Federal District Court judge, the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club, the world renowned scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, have all agreed does no harm and in fact may benefit the marine environment. Mr. Chairman, the one-size-fits-all requirement of the Clean Water Act just does not make sense for San Diego. It does not make scientific sense, it does not make economic sense, nor does it make environmental sense. It is simply a bureaucratic requirement to provide a level of treatment that is unnecessary, costly, and provides no beneficial impact to the marine environment. This is not simply my personal opinion. The option, as we stated over and over again, is stated by scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and from the National Academy of Sciences. It is supported by reams of scientific data collected over the years. These studies have shown there is no degradation of water quality or the ecology of the ocean due to the discharge of the plant's chemically enhanced treated waste water. Let me point out, this is not merely a chlorine treated primary situation. This is an alternative to secondary treatment that includes a much higher level of technology that my friend, if I can yield to my friend from California [Mr. Bilbray], might explain.

Mr. FILNER. It is not environmentally sound.

Mr. FILNER. The law requires us to do 85 percent. We are doing 84 percent. Should we spend $5 billion to get an infinitesimal increase in that solid removal with enormous damage to the land environment, because we would have to put in extra energy to do that for sludge.

Mr. FILNER. No, it is not 16 percent. You know what secondary requirements are?

Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman will yield, that is exactly our policy. As a matter of fact, those of us who live in San Diego and who completely depend on the beaches not only for our own enjoyment but for tourism and economic help, we could never possibly see the ocean as merely a dumping ground. We believe it, as you do, we believe that money to get that infinitesimal increase in solid removal required by the EPA to put into water reclamation, to put into tertiary, to deal with the Mexican sewage is the way we ought to spend our money, not be required to spend billions of dollars on something which gives us very little marine environment protection.

Mr. FILNER. It is not an attempt. We achieve 84 percent.