Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon knows that on almost every environmental issue, we are in total agreement. Are you familiar with the percentage of solid removal in the system that San Diego now uses?

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

Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the scientists from the Scripps Institute have lobbied this Congress for this change. The Federal judge in charge of the case has lobbied us for the change. The local environmental groups have lobbied us for the change. The local environmental groups have lobbied us for the change. And I would ask my colleague to continue that thought.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being here with the Congressman from my adjacent district, San Diego. Before I answer the question, I do want to point out that for many years we had adjacent districts in local government, Mr. Bilbray being a county supervisor and myself being a San Diego city councilman. We have worked together for many, many years on this very issue. We have fought about it, we have argued about it, we have come to an agreement about how we should handle this, and I think it is very appropriate that we are both now in the Congress to try to finally give San Diego some assurance to try to deal satisfactorily with the environment, and yet do it in a cost- effective manner. The gentleman from California asked me about good science. The gentleman from San Jose talked about good science. The most respected scientists who deal with oceanography in the world at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography have agreed with our conclusions.

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

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Boehlert-Saxton- Roemer substitute. This better, safer alternative represents a moderate, common-sense and bi-partisan--quite frankly, an above party-- approach to cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches without turning our back on the health and safety of Americans--and it insures that my constituents in San Diego will not have to spend billions to build an unnecessary sewage plant. Fortunately from a purely parochial viewpoint both H.R. 961 and this safer alternative provide regulatory relief for San Diego and recognizes that our current sewage treatment system adequately protects our ocean. Let me repeat, this means that both bills would remove the requirement that would force San Diego to waste billions of dollars to modify our sewage treatment system. But with Dan Diego assured of regulatory relief and the savings of billions of dollars, we must also be sure that our drinking water is protected, and that we can fish and swim in San Diego's rivers, lakes and beaches. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will radically change the Nations' laws that protect our beaches and drinking water. H.R. 961 would increase the dangers of pesticides and chemical contamination of our drinking water--imposing higher costs to clean up our drinking water or forcing all of us to buy bottled water. It would let large agribusiness and industrial polluters off the hook from preventing the contamination of our drinking water--and it would pass those costs along to all San Diegans. That right, we consumers will pay more to protect a few special interests. San Diego gets its drinking water from the Colorado River. Many smaller cities from four States dump their treated sewage into the Colorado River, and before this water gets to San Diego, it must go through one of the largest agricultural areas in the country. Unlike the safer alternative. H.R. 961 would allow these cities and large agribusiness corporations to flood chemicals and other pollutants--at will--into our drinking water supply. H.R. 961 also threatens our economy and our health. It includes the repeal of a section of the Coastal Zone Management Act--which will eliminate current protections for our beaches. How can we attract tourism if visitors cannot swim in our beaches? San Diego's beaches are already closed to often. Is this really the time to get rid of the very protections that help to keep the beaches safe for our families? The safer alternative would not repeal the Coastal Zone Management Act program that protects our beaches. In fact, the substitute has adopted the language drafted by the Coastal States Organization, which represents the Governors of our Nation's coastal States, and continues to protect our beaches--for our children's health and for our economic health. There are three critical questions that on behalf of San Diegans, I must ask about these bills: First, will we have clean water to drink? second, will we have a clean beach to swim at? and, third, will we get relief from the multi-billion dollar secondary treatment boondoggle? With the safer alternative the answers are: Yes to safe drinking water, yes to clean beaches, and yes to relief from higher sewage taxes. Without the safer alternative the answers are no, no, and yes. San Diego will get the regulatory relief it needs in either bill. But I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 961--a bill that purports to help San Diego on the one hand, but destroys the safety of our drinking water and beaches on the other. San Diegans are asking three important questions. Let's not get one out of three right. Support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute ``Safer Alternative'' and answer ``yes'' to all three.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but more importantly I thank the gentleman for his tireless efforts on behalf of protecting our environment. I say to him, ``Mr. Mineta, we may lose today's battle, but under your leadership I'm confident we're going to be back, and we will win the long-range war.'' Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise today during this debate to urge my colleagues not to turn our back on the health and safety of Americans and to, once again, reassure my constituents in San Diego that they will not have to spend billions for an unnecessary sewage facility. San Diego is assured to regulatory relief with either of the major alternatives on the floor, but we must also be sure that we can fish and swim in San Diego's rivers, lakes, and beaches. The critical questions that San Diegans must ask themselves about these bills before us is, will I have clean water to drink, will I have a clean beach to swim at, and will I get relief from the multi-billion- dollar secondary treatment boondoggle? With the Boehlert substitute, which I am supporting, the answers are ``yes'' to safe drinking water, ``yes'' to clean beaches, and ``yes'' to relief from increased sewage bills. I cannot support any bill that purports to help San Diego on the one hand and destroys the safety of our drinking water and beaches on the other.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by my colleague, Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth of Idaho, in introducing the Insurance Tax Fairness and Small Insurance Company Economic Growth Act that will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to close a glaring tax loophole. When passed, this bill will assure fiscal responsibility in our debt management and help ensure tax fairness. It is an honor to be joined by my colleague in this bipartisan effort and I am certain that, as more Members become familiar with this issue following the upcoming recess, we will have additional cosponsors. The 104th Congress has seen numerous proposals for tax cuts, budget cuts, rescissions, and deficit reduction. Everyone has his or her own idea about what should be spared and what should be eliminated--and at whose expense. And despite our efforts at deficit reduction, the national debt continues to threaten our economic stability. Today, we present a proposal to reduce the deficit, help pay for these budget-cutting proposals and, at the same time, help small business. Our proposal requests no new funding, attacks no one's programs, does not increase the Federal deficit and raises no new taxes. This legislation is designed to do away with section 809 of the Tax Code that both the U.S. Treasury and the General Accounting Office [GAO] have termed as flawed and unworkable, and contrary to what Congress intended. Our bill would close a $2 billion dollar loophole--that is $2 billion per year. Currently, a few giant mutual life insurance companies benefit from this loophole and do not pay their fair share of taxes. Closing this loophole would only require that these companies pay their full share of taxes. All that is required is a technical correction to existing tax laws affecting life insurance companies. At the same time, the Nation's small insurance companies would be helped by our efforts and would receive significant tax relief. Under the terms of section 809 of the Federal Tax Code, the few giant mutual life insurance companies are able to increase or decrease taxes on their business activities by manipulating the sale of assets. That legislation would repeal section 809 of the Tax Code and place a cap on the amount of dividends that are tax deductible. This action would help achieve the revenue which Congress and the treasury intended for the mutual life insurance industry. This $2 billion annual windfall dates back to 1984 when Congress attempted to correct the taxation of mutual life insurance companies. That corrective action was intended to provide income to the U.S. Treasury based on equity among life insurance companies--both stock and mutual. After a short-term increase in taxes received, the revenue actually began General Accounting Office [GAO] admitted something was wrong. The intended revenues were not being generated. In fact, certain large mutual insurance companies have been paying no tax on earnings from business activity since approximately 1986. Obviously, this was contrary to congressional intent. Congress asked the insurance industry 5 years ago to come up with a solution to the shortfall. Our request is still valid, Mr. Speaker, and we can no longer wait for a response. We must get to the bottom of this matter by having a congressional hearing that lays all of the facts on the table and presents all sides of the issue. This legislation will lead to full disclosure of all relevant material--and settle what the U.S. Treasury and other tax experts agree is the fundamental fairness involved. There has been considerable interest in our legislation, including national columns supporting the goals of the bill. There is bipartisan support across the political spectrum. The national Coalition to Close the Loophole and Put Our Kids First brings 173 grass-roots groups to this effort. Mr. Speaker, the state of the current budget deficit threatens our Nation's fiscal security and requires immediate and decisive action. Of all the difficult choices Congress faces, none are more agonizing than those involving taxpayer dollars. The loss of $2 billion in annual revenue makes the choices between military spending, middle class tax cuts, welfare reform, veterans' programs, and social services even more difficult than need be. Our legislation is about the ability of this Nation to tax all citizens equally, and making sure that Federal dollars are spent on programs that are truly in the national interest. Closing the section 809 loophole makes a lot of sense--and it would be a courageous decision. It would show the Nation that Congress has its priorities back in order. I urge the bill's careful consideration through the congressional process. I ask that an information sheet entitled ``What is Section 809 and Why Is It an Issue?'' and a recent editorial from the San Diego Union- Tribune be included in the Record. [From the San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, Mar. 26, 1995] Corporate Welfare--Mutual Insurance Avoids Federal Taxes Historian Richard Hofstadter pointed out in his Pulitzer Prize- winning book ``The Age of Reform'' that special interests are especially adept at evading the spirit and intent of government reforms directed at them. That certainly seems to be the case with the mutual insurance industry, which has managed for the last 11 years to evade paying its fair share of federal taxes. In 1984, Congress rewrote the tax code to ensure that mutual insurance companies were taxed at the same level as stock insurance firms. Both companies sell the same type of policies. The difference between them is that mutuals are owned by policyholders, while stock companies are owned by stockholders. But a funny thing happened on the way to implementing this equitable change in the tax code: The mutuals figured out a way around the revision. By simply altering the way they accounted for their assets, the mutual firms discovered they could pay much less in taxes than the reform intended. Some mutuals, moreover, have been able to avoid paying any federal taxes on their earnings. Not long after arriving in Washington in 1993, Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, introduced a bill to remedy the situation. His measure was intended to close the tax loophole that enables mutual companies to avoid coughing up what Congress intended them to pay. As a former history professor, Filner should have known from the beginning what he was up against. Even so, he was shocked at the ease with which his bill was stonewalled in committee and ultimately buried by the politically powerful insurance lobby. In 1989, the mutual insurance lobby blocked House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski from trying to close the same loophole. Instead, the industry assured lawmakers that it would come up with a tax proposal to solve the problem. Nearly six years have passed, and still there is no plan from the industry. Nor is one likely soon, because the mutuals are content with the status quo. Not so for Filner. He intends to reintroduce his measure, and with bipartisan support this time. Problem is, there is little enthusiasm on Capitol Hill these days for any tax increase. What's more, the Republican majority in the House is preoccupied with passing the ``Contract With America.'' And many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are loath to take on the insurance lobby. But the insurance industry's evasion of the clear intent of Congress should not go unchallenged. Filner's reform would recoup nearly $2 billion in taxes that the mutual companies avoid paying each year. Republicans have taken a great deal of flak for their efforts to pare runaway welfare benefits. Here's an opportunity for them to go after one of the many abuses in ``corporate welfare'' that also are a drain on the federal treasury.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in support of the concept of Medicare subvention, found in H.R. 580 and H.R. 861. These two bills would let military retirees and veterans use their Medicare benefits at military or VA hospitals. I take great interest in this legislation because the concepts contained in H.R. 861 originated in my hometown--with Col. Walter D. Mikulich, Maj. Edward H. Townsend, and Lt. Col. George R. Smith, in the San Diego military retiree and veteran health care study group. Military health care facilities can actually treat older military retirees for less than Medicare pays civilian providers, but cannot afford to enroll Medicare-eligible retirees unless Congress changes the law to allow reimbursement from Medicare. So, older military retirees are now limited to using Medicare in the civilian community at a higher cost to everyone--Medicare, taxpayers, and beneficiaries. Those who do use military facilities lose the Medicare benefit they deserve. The exclusion of retired personnel from the military health care system undermines the long-term interest of our country. A crucial aspect of personnel readiness is maintaining strong incentives for high-quality personnel to continue to serve full military careers. Offers of lifetime health care benefits are one of the primary incentives that induced many current retired members to serve military careers that often spanned two or three wars. Now, they are upset at the broken promise--and the prospect of no coverage but Medicare, at a time when reductions in Medicare benefits are on the congressional table. Another consideration is the recruitment and retention of quality medical personnel at our military hospitals. Professional advancement means that medical personnel must see and treat a wide range of patients with a broad spectrum of medical problems. Medicare-eligible retirees would provide that clinical experience. Medicare subvention is an idea that makes sense for everyone. Older retirees have earned military health care through decades of selfless service to this great country. It is time for us to keep our promise to our veterans and provide them access to the VA and military health care facilities of their choice.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember a great American leader and hero, Cesar E. 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 California. Today, I ask my colleagues to support legislation I just introduced to make March 31 a Federal holiday so that our entire Nation can honor Cesar Chavez for his many contributions. Cesar Chavez, the son of migrant farm workers, dedicated his life to fighting for the human rights and dignity of farm workers. He was born March 31, 1927, on a small farm near Yuma, AZ, and died just 2 years ago, on April 23, 1993. Over the course of his 66 years, Cesar Chavez' work inspired millions and earned him a major place 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 the country. 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. In addition, Cesar Chavez made the world aware of the exposure to dangerous chemicals that farm workers--and consumers--face every day. As a labor leader, he received great support from unions across the country, and the movement he began continues today as the United Farm Workers of America. Cesar Chavez' influence extended 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 police and welfare officials, and empowered many to seek further advancement in education and politics. There are countless stories of judges, engineers, lawyers, teachers, church leaders, organizers, and other hard-working professionals who credit Cesar Chavez as the inspiring force in their lives. In his fight for peace, justice, and respect, he gained the admiration and respect of millions of Americans, including this Congressman. Cesar Chavez will be remembered for his tireless commitment to improve the plight of farm workers and the poor throughout the United States and for the inspiration his heroic efforts gave so many Americans to work nonviolently for justice in their communities. We, in Congress, must make certain that the movement Cesar Chavez began, and the lessons he taught, will continue. In his honor, I urge my colleagues to support legislation to declare March 31 a Federal holiday in honor of Cesar Chavez. In the words of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, ``si se puede--yes we can.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to honor a friend and fellow educator from San Diego State University who passed away this month--Dr. Dennis Berge. Dr. Berge dedicated his life to our community and our country. He taught at Crawford and Hoover High Schools in San Diego and, in 1963, joined the faculty at San Diego State, where he taught until his retirement in 1992. I was privileged to be a History Department colleague of Dr. Berge's for more than two decades. Dr. Berge authored many articles and reviews on western U.S. history and the city of San Diego, but was best known as an expert on the history of the Mexican-American War, U.S. continental expansionism and the American West. He was an active member of the Western Historical Society and the Organization of American Historians. As a professor, he was known to his students for his thoughtful lectures, rigorous intellectual standards, and careful attention to the academic needs of his students. Dr. Berge served in the Army during the Korean war and commanded an armored platoon. He was awarded the Bronze Star for heroic achievement in action near Soubyok, Korea, on July 11, 1953. After being discharged from the Army as a first lieutenant in November 1953, he resumed his studies at San Diego State University, where he received his Bachelor and Master of Arts Degrees in History. He subsequently received a Ph.D. in History at the University of California, Berkeley. As a faculty member at San Diego State University, he assumed numerous administrative duties such as Chair of the Department of History for 6 years and member of the Faculty Senate. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Priscilla Ann, and his family.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day to commemorate the 174th anniversary of Greek national independence, and to call for support here in the U.S. Congress for the rights of Greek nationals worldwide. As we celebrate Greece's successful struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1821, let us not forget the continuing struggles of Greek people today--for basic religious and linguistic rights in Albania and Turkey, for peaceful coexistence and freedom in Cyprus, and for greater recognition of Greek sovereignty by its neighbors in Macedonia. The Greek people deserve our strong support as they strive for the very same rights and values we Americans hold so dear. In my district, California's 50th Congressional District, I have the privilege of working with the George Pollos San Diego Chapter No. 505 of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association [AHEPA]. These Greek-Americans promote educational opportunities in the community, and are actively involved in international humanitarian issues. I am honored to join with them today to pay tribute to the Republic of Greece on its 174th birthday, and to call for congressional attention parts of the world.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for the continuation of the Department of Commerce's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. In San Diego County, we encourage any effort that stimulates the growth of local businesses. Growing businesses mean more jobs--and that is my main priority for San Diego. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service [US&FCS] has a proven record of assisting small- and medium-size exports. This is a Government program that works. In the San Diego area, the US&FCS assisted local firms in venturing into 85 new export markets in fiscal year 1994. It also helped 22 firms in making their first export sales. The US&FCS operation is effective because of its local expertise and local concern. The office in San Diego provides area exporters with an accessible, local resource on trade with overseas markets. Operating within the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, the US&FCS gets results. Small- and medium-size exporters are provided a highly cost-effective combination of domestic and overseas services that help them to expand exports. This translates into much needed jobs. We all want an effective, efficient Government, and we all support efforts to get rid of wasteful bureaucracy. The US&FCS works--let's keep it.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will be interested in testimony I gave today before the Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on a project that is critical to the economic success of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and the economic development of not only southern California, but the whole Nation. When the 103d Congress approved and the President signed NAFTA, we all knew that ensuring the success of the agreement would require that all parties provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the flow of trade. I am asking this committee and this Congress to honor this commitment to San Diego. State Route 905 is the critical missing link in our United States-Mexico border trade and transportation system on the West Coast. The current road serves as the only connection between the Otay Mesa point of entry [POE] in San Diego and the Nation's interstate highway system. State Route 905 is a part of that infrastructure which is needed to accommodate international trade and deserves to be funded and completed. I am here today to urge you to consider funding this vital link during your upcoming deliberations of transportation projects to be funded during fiscal year 1996. demonstration projects There is a critical need for continued Federal funding of ``special highway demonstration projects.'' States undergo a constant struggle to build and maintain their own intrastate roads and bridges. They do not have sufficient funds to single-handedly complete highway projects which supplement the national highway system and which support Federal trade policy--as in our case. This project will produce benefits far beyond the local region as only 16 percent of trade using this border crossing has a San Diego origin or destination. Every State in the continental United States, Hawaii, Canada, Asia, and the Canal Zone all profit from trade through this point of entry. The Federal Highway Administration has proposed that this road be a part of the National Highway System--and I am confident that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will include this in its list of authorized projects. local commitment The city of San Diego and the State of California already have demonstrated their good faith commitment to their share of this project. They have invested $14 million and have begun work to widen the existing road from four to six lanes of traffic. However, due to the increasingly heavy flow of transborder commercial traffic, this road will be at--or above--capacity when completed. This is only a short-term solution, however, and a permanent answer to America's growing trade with Mexico is needed. We have worked closely with the city and county of San Diego, the State Department of Transportation [CALTRANS], and the local regional council of governments in identifying this as our county's top transportation need. In addition, CALTRANS, the General Services Administration and the California Highway Patrol Department all concur on the vital need for completion of this highway to meet the pressing needs created by the substantial increase in trade transportation. trade facilitation This is a necessary and vital road because the Otay Mesa crossing is the only commercial vehicle border crossing facility between the two largest cities on the United States- Mexico border. With the recent opening of a new border crossing facility at Otay Mesa, this point of entry handles the third highest value of commerce along the entire United States-Mexico border. The recent Federal Highway Administration report to Congress estimated that, because of the adoption of NAFTA, the value of commercial goods crossing the border would increase by 208 percent by the year 2000--but only if additional infrastructure improvements are made. If we achieve this 208 percent growth--the estimated value of goods crossing this border would be $18.8 billion annually. The Otay Mesa border crossing facility can handle this increase in business. We simply need an additional incremental investment on the part of the Federal Government to put us in a position to take full advantage of future increases in trade. The one road that leads from the interstate highway, to this border crossing cannot accommodate the increase in traffic. This link is a four-lane city street--Otay Mesa Road--which is already over capacity and which has been the location of a number of fatal vehicular accidents due to its congestion. This road was never intended to handle heavily loaded cargo trucks travelling at high speeds to and from the international border. We need a highway to take this commercial traffic inland. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government made the decision to process all international commercial traffic at the Otay Mesa border crossing. The Federal Government also made the decision to approve NAFTA--which will soon double the volume of our cross-border traffic. These two new federal trade policies have created the urgent need for this highway. Not funding this project would be the worst kind of unfunded mandate. The Federal Government must meet this responsbility--our local communities simply cannot. Traffic and Safety As I have mentioned, an overcrowded four lane city street-- Otay Mesa Road--provides the only connection between the Otay Mesa point of entry and the interstate highway system. This road, which has the appearance of a country road, was not intended to carry a high volume of automobile traffic and certainly never a high volume of heavy commercial vehicles. With the closing of the nearby San Ysidro border crossing to commercial traffic, an additional 1,200 trucks per day carrying commercial goods to and from Mexico now travel on this city street. While the average mix of commercial trucks on any city street is 5 percent, this road experiences a 20 to 25 percent truck mix during regular business hours. Wear and tear on this road is occurring at an alarming rate due to these heavy loads. When major traffic accidents occur on this road--as they do with increasing frequency now--all border traffic slows to a stop. It is typically 4 hours and occasionally more before accidents are cleared away and traffic returns to normal. This constitutes a major impediment to the implementation of

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to voice my outrage about the hypocrisy that now governs this rescissions process. Yesterday I stood on the floor and tried to offer what I believe was a reasonable alternative to the horrendous choices we were being asked to make. I spoke out against the new game being employed in Washington--bait and switch. The rules are simple: propose massive and irresponsible budget cuts one day. Then, turn around when cameras and reporters are watching, and claim you are fighting to restore the very cuts that grabbed the headlines just days before. Games are fine, Mr. Speaker, but not here. Not when we are looking at billion-dollar cuts that will hurt children and older Americans, our veterans and those in this country who can't afford a powerful lobbyist. I want to use one example of how playing these kinds of games will hurt the good people of San Diego. People are waiting to hear what we will do with funding for summer jobs for youth. San Diego County has enjoyed a great deal of success for the past 13 years with the Hire-A-Youth Program. Hire-A-Youth gives more than 6,000 young people their first shot at real employment. Let us be very clear about this. The kids who get these jobs are from families at or below the poverty level. More than half of them come from families on welfare. They need these summer jobs to survive. They are not in this for running-around money. These jobs help them to help put food on their families' tables and clothes on their backs. They help pay the rent. Hire-A-Youth has been doing exactly what many of my colleagues in this Congress have said we want to do about welfare: break the cycle of dependency by putting people to work. We are providing these children an opportunity to learn the value of the work ethic. What kind of message are we sending to America's youth by cutting the one resource they have to become productive, contributing members of our community? I have heard from parents, teachers, business people, community leaders--you name it--imploring us to save summer jobs for kids. But the most poignant pleas are coming from the kids themselves. Angela writes that sometimes students have the tendency to feel as if no one cares, but this program has given her the motivation to get a job. Omar says that no one else would hire a 14-year-old, and through this program he learned valuable social and money management skills. Isn't that what we want? Let's keep what works for our kids. Stop the bait and switch games. We must protect what works for our communities.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I have the time. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] wants to force us to choose through his objection between the veterans and service opportunities for our young people. I think this is hypocrisy.

Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute for the amendment the restoring of the full $206 million for the Veterans budget without any offsetting cut.

Mr. FILNER. Do you want to force us to choose between----

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a new game being played in Washington. It is called bait and switch. The rules are simple. Propose massive and irresponsible budget cuts and then 2 weeks later stand up in front of the TV cameras and claim you are fighting to restore the very cuts you have initiated. I am tired of this hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. We should not be having choices between our veterans and our opportunities for our young people. Regular order in this Nation is not being followed by this budget. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, today I rise to honor and remember a leader and hero, Al Johnston, known to many in San Diego as a legend of the barrio. Al Johnston was not the type of a man to sit back and let the world go by; he took action to make his community a better place to live. During the 1930's, he took his property and gave it to the less fortunate by converting an old car into a soup kitchen in Logan Heights. Later, he provided guidance and inspiration for many teens in the community by founding ``Los Gallos,'' a club for restless teens. He led voter registration drives. He was committed to making a difference in the lives of many in the Latino community in San Diego. He is the type of leader we should all try to emulate. Mr. Johnston was a proud leader of the spirit and soul of the barrio. He was adamant in his opposition to junkyards and pollution producing industries in Logan Heights. In the 1970's, he led the campaigns for the conversion of most of a 5.4-acre parcel at the foot of Crosby Street into a bayfront addition to Chicano Park, a cultural landmark. He was one voice who made a difference. My community has lost a great leader, and faithful fighter in the ongoing struggle to improve the quality of life for ourselves and our children. It is now up to us to continue his work and his dedication to the community. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to join the county of San Diego in honoring our Nation's veterans. The following resolution by the county of San Diego designates 1995 as the ``Year of the Veteran'': Whereas, on May 8, 1995, America will observe the 20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war; and, Whereas, on September 2, 1995, our Nation will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II; and, Whereas, San Diego County has the highest retired military population in the state of California; and, Whereas, San Diego County has the second largest veteran population in the Nation; and, Whereas, the county homeless veteran population is double the national percentage, and others are at risk of becoming the ``News'' homeless; and, Whereas, veterans of all eras are still facing the aftermath and reconstruction of their lives after military service; and, Whereas, these veterans, their families, their widows and their survivors continue to be adversely affected by military downsizing, base closures, massive defense industry cutbacks; and, Whereas, a concerted effort to assist these worthy citizens and former soldiers with decent jobs adequate housing and economic, self-empowering opportunities, will demonstrate our concern and gratitude; and, Whereas, as the County of San Diego is committed to finding new and creative solutions and programs, that provide ``continuum of care'' solutions to combat and reverse this national and local tragedy that has befallen our veterans: Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the County of San Diego designates 1995 as the ``Year of the Veteran.'' We call upon our citizens, the business community, non-profit groups, service providers, our individual cities and others throughout the county to join together for the purpose of focusing on providing effective solutions to those who have not overcome the effects of their military service and still need our help. Mr. Speaker, I submit this resolution to recognize the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe to our Nation's veterans for their valor and service to our country. Let us resolve to make 1995 not only the Year of the Veteran, but more importantly, the year we begin to make real strides toward keeping our contract with these brave men and women.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I join with several of my colleagues tonight to discuss the Davis-Bacon Act, an act which for more than six decades has protected the standard of living of all Americans. We are going to hear in the debate that comes up as there are efforts to repeal this act that somehow the Davis-Bacon Act merely helps a few union workers, that it is a special interest law for only a few. Mr. Speaker, Davis-Bacon benefits all Americans. It does help union workers who have negotiated good wage rates across America. But it helps nonunion construction workers also because prevailing wages in almost 75 percent of communities across the country are based on nonunion pay scales and because Davis-Bacon extends the same protections to nonunion workers as it does to union members. Davis-Bacon benefits communities like my own in San Diego, because wages in our city are protected from cutthroat out-of-State lower wage labor and our economy is enriched because our working people maintain the purchasing power to keep our own small businesses thriving and our own retail operations going. Contractors in our community are helped because they have a level playing field on which to compete and our taxpayers are benefited because they can rely on quality and the productivity, the timeliness, the reliability that more than compensates for the additional wage cost. All our citizens, Mr. Speaker, are benefited because all the construction projects we rely on, whether they be bridges or schools or dams, nuclear waste removal sites, military installations, superhighways, all are built to the highest specifications by the most qualified, well-trained workers. That is why Davis-Bacon protects the standard of living of all Americans. Now, we are going to hear in the debate that follows in a few days, in the months ahead, that eliminating Davis-Bacon will save the government billions of dollars, that Davis-Bacon adds to the cost of government at a time when we can ill afford that. Mr. Speaker, the facts say otherwise. In fact, eliminating Davis- Bacon will not save the government money. Lower wages, it turns out, does not mean lower cost. And why is that? As has been shown in comparison after comparison, high-wage states complete the work of the Davis-Bacon contracts with 56 percent fewer hours worked. High-wage states, as contrasted to low-wage states, build 74.5 more miles of roadbed and 33 more miles of bridges for $557 million less, and at the same time workers received a wage package more than double that in those low-wage states. In addition, if Davis-Bacon were repealed, construction employees would be misclassified as independent contractors and the government would be cheated out of billions of tax dollars. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, [Mr. DeLauro], pointed out, nine States have already repealed their little Davis-Bacon acts because they have found out that tax collections actually fell because of lower rates. The Federal Government, it has been estimated, will lose nearly a billion dollars a year because of the decline in construction earnings. That is simply not a very smart way to address our deficit problem. In addition, construction injuries increase by 15 percent in non-Davis-Bacon States, and that results in enormous loss-of-work days and productivity. So, Mr. Speaker, not only does Davis-Bacon benefit all Americans; repealing it will not reduce any cost. It may, in fact, raise the cost of doing business. My own district in San Diego has a majority of residents who are either African-American or Hispanic. They always ask, is anything I propose or anything that I favor harmful or of benefit to ethnic minorities? Mr. Speaker, Davis-Bacon protects all working people, regardless of race of ethnicity. The intent of the act is to mandate that a fair and liveable wage be paid to every worker to stabilize local wage rates. Mr. Speaker, we must not repeal Davis-Bacon.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr.Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to commemorate the profession of engineering. February 19-25 was National Engineers Week. As the Nation's second largest profession, engineering provides a challenging and rewarding career choice to roughly 1.8 million people in the United States. Mr. Speaker, engineers often complain that many people do not know what it is that engineers do. Well, virtually everything that you and I do every day of the year has been invented, improved, or made safer because of engineers. National Engineers Week is always celebrated at the time of George Washington's birthday. Washington had the educational background of an engineer and land surveyor and is considered the Nation's first engineer. As President, Washington led a growing society toward technical advancements, invention and education. He promoted the construction of roads, canals, the U.S. Capitol, docks and ports and development of manufacturing resources. Engineers Week falls during Black History Month. African-Americans have engineered some of our most important and best-known inventions. There are numerous examples of leaders in the engineering profession, Mr. Speaker, but one has especially touched my heart. It is the story of Archie Alexander, who although advised against a career in engineering because of racial prejudice, persisted and gained recognition. If it were not for Mr. Alexander's perseverance, the Tidal Basin Bridge and Seawall and the Whitehurst Freeway in Washington, DC would not have been built. It is African-American role models like Alexander who have helped pave the way for others wishing to pursue careers in engineering, including women and members of other minority groups. As we approach the 21st century, the profession of engineering will help us cope with our changing world, while creating numerous new jobs and career paths. Long live engineering.