Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I join today in a bipartisan effort with the gentleman from New York, Congressman Benjamin Gilman, chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, to introduce the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 1995. Today, we recall the brave members of the Filipino Army who obeyed the order of the President of the United States during World War II. They fought side by side with U.S. forces against a common enemy. They served and died defending the American flag in the epic battles of Bataan and Corregidor and through 4 long years of enemy occupation. They were as much as part of our fighting forces as were soldiers drafted from the States. But, soon after World War II ended, the 79th Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946, denying Filipino Veterans not only the benefits, but also the recognition they so richly deserved. For far too many years, Filipino Veterans have been waiting for the benefits they earned, the benefits that go automatically to other veterans who were exposed to similar hardships. A grave injustice has been done--and now is the time for us to correct this injustice. Even President Harry S. Truman, who signed the Rescission Act, said it did not release the United States from its obligation to provide for the heroic Filipino Veterans who sacrificed so much during the war. He believed it was a moral obligation of the United States to look after the welfare of the Filipino Veterans--and so do I, and so do my colleagues who join me today in cosponsoring this legislation. The bullets in World War II did not ask if their target was an American or a Filipino soldier. In 15 years, there will no longer be any of these veterans left alive. Many, until their dying day, were asking, ``Do we deserve the 1946 Rescission Act? Didn't we suffer the same suffering as the American soldier fighting the same war?'' We must act and we must act now. I am especially pleased that two of my colleagues from San Diego County are joining with me today in recognizing the contribution of the World War II Filipino Veterans, Congressmen Brian Bilbray and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham. I urge all my other colleagues to join me in recognizing these brave soldiers and in granting them the benefits they earned and deserve.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, I rise today to pay tribute to a hero in my district who helps his community day after day, week after week, year after year. This hero is San Diego Police Officer Patrick R. Miller. Officer Miller is a man who is fulfilling his life's dream. Since childhood, he desired to become a police officer--and that dream became reality 6 years ago after successfully being accepted and completing the police academy. Officer Miller furthered his career by graduating from the highly competitive Special Weapons and Tactics [SWAT] Academy last spring. Officer Miller is praised by his fellow officers and community residents as a model police officer--one who treats people as human beings, while doing his job with precision and professionalism. On the morning of February 2, 1995, Officer Miller was shot five times during a routine traffic stop. He was very seriously wounded. Fortunately, Officer Miller survived the incident and is recovering from his injuries. Officer Miller has proven to be a respected and hard working police officer for the city of San Diego. I wish him a quick and complete recovery--and a speedy return to the duties he performs so well. I salute Officer Patrick R. Miller for his hard work, dedication, and tenacity. He is an excellent example of the impact that one person can have on the community.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in support of continued Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Museum Services and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. To be or not to be civilized; that is the question, Mr. Speaker. A civilized society must include art and cultural enrichment, and it is one of the responsibilities of government to support that aspect of our civilization. We get what we pay for. We cannot rely solely on the good will of a relatively few private individuals to fund the arts--it is the duty of us all. This Nation's investment in the arts is one of the best we make. For example, the approximately $2 million in Federal funding for the NEA, NEH, and IMS that goes to my county in California, San Diego County, is matched by nearly four times that amount in local contributions. This is a perfect example of public-private partnership. The Government's funding stimulates local giving to the arts which in turn stimulates local economies. According to a recent study commissioned by the California Arts Council, nonprofit art organizations contribute some $2.1 billion annually to California's economy, generate $77 million in tax revenue, and create some 100,000 jobs. Yes, the arts are important to the State economy of California, and to other States as well. Business Week says that Americans spent $340 billion on entertainment in 1993. Critics tell us that the arts are only for the elite. Nothing could be further from the truth. Audiences and participants alike are people from all walks of life. Nearly 40 million tickets were sold last year to theater, music, and dance performances. Nielsen-rating figures show that 56.5 percent of households watching PBS programs earn less than $40,000 a year. And a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed that 76 percent of respondents thought the Government should continue to fund public broadcasting. Exposure to the arts is especially important for our children. If our young people can be motivated, thrilled, enriched, and ``turned on'' by exciting experiences in theater, painting, pottery, or dance, they will be less likely to ``turn on'' to drugs or gangs to fill their empty hours and empty souls. Barbra Streisand, in a speech at Harvard University earlier this month, told how participation in the choral club at her Brooklyn high school was the beginning of her career--and she urges more support for the arts, not less. She asks how we can accept a country which has no orchestras, choruses, libraries, or art classes to nourish our children. How many more talents like Barbra Streisand's are out there, whom we will lose when there are no programs to challenge them? In San Diego County, the San Diego Opera Company and the San Diego Symphony provide opportunities for kids to attend the opera and symphony concerts. The opera regularly goes out to schools with ensemble performances. San Diego's recipients of arts funding range from elementary schools and universities to KPBS public radio and TV to the Samahan Philippine Dance Company and the Centro Cultural de la Raza to the Balboa Park Museums and the Old Globe Theater, groups representing the entire population of San Diego County. TheatreForum, and international theater magazine published at UCSD; the renowned La Jolla Playhouse whose productions go on to thrill audiences on Broadway and in the rest of the country; an international festival at locations on both sides of the border between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico; graduate internships at the Museum of Photographic Arts; touring exhibitions from the Museum of Contemporary Arts in San Diego. I could go on and on. These and hundreds of other art forms are advanced by arts funding in San Diego County. Even so, among all First World nations, the United States now spends the least on Federal arts support per citizen--and we are thinking of reneging on that support. If we say no to culture, we will prove, in the words of Los Angeles Philharmonic managing director Ernest Fleishmann, that ``we are the dumbest Nation on the planet.'' According to the General Accounting Office, the Department of Defense plans to spend $9 billion over the next 7 years building nuclear attack submarines that the Pentagon admits it does not need. That $9 billion could sustain the Arts and Humanities endowments at current levels for 26 years. 26 years of National Public Radio, Big Bird, music and art for kids--or superfluous subs for the Pentagon. Is this a difficult choice? If we defund the NEA, the NEH, the IMS and PBS, we will be telling the world that we no longer take pride in museums, our dance companies, our poets, ourselves. Ultimately, we are judged by the heritage we leave our children. I hope we leave them more than soap operas and talk shows, attack submarines and assault rifles, gangs and drugs! Yes, Mr. Speaker, to be or not to be civilized; that is the question.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and thank the members of the Black Caucus for organizing this very special special order. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this historic celebration we have appropriately named Black History Month. Black History Month is a time of reflection and a time to gain insight from the past and to help our continual striving for equality for all. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to underline the importance of the continued fight for freedom for Africa-Americans, because that fight is in reality a fight for freedom for all Americans. It is a fight that has seen many victories and overcome many obstacles, only to be faced with more challenges. In Germany during the 1940's repression was called fascism. In the 1960's, during the civil rights movement, we called it racism. Now in the 1990's, repression has a new face. We do not have a short label for it yet, but all the hallmarks are there. Division, intolerance, hatred. This new racism threatens many of our achievements of the past 30 years, achievements for example by many African-Americans in my hometown of San Diego who have strived to create a better city and a better Nation. Mr. Donnie Cochran, the first African-American to command the Navy's elite Blue Angles; Miss Regina Petty, the first African-American ever to be named president of the San Diego County Bary Association; the Montford Point Marine Association, the Historic African-American Marine fighting force from World War II; Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the oldest African-American Church in San Diego County; the Neighborhood House, an organization that originated the Head Start Program in San Diego; the San Diego Urban League, an organization that has served as a leader, mentor and an instructor for the African-American community. The list goes on and on. These individuals and organizations have served as role models not only for the African-American community, but for all residents in the San Diego area, and I am honored to serve as a representative of these outstanding Americans and organizations. But, Mr. Speaker, if we are not forceful in our efforts to combat racism, we will destroy these achievements in the legacy of the civil rights movement and thrust our country backward into hostility and animosity. We know, of course, due to these celebrations, the name of African-American heroes, W.E.B. DuBois, Frederick Douglas, George Washington Carver, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and many, many others who dedicated their lives to the fight for equality and justice. But even as we celebrate the progress African-Americans have made in our lifetime, we cannot become comfortable with what has been achieved. The torch must be passed to each generation and the responsibility to continue the fight rests on our shoulders. Yes, we must reflect on the past as we are doing tonight, but, more importantly, we must organize and work in the present and plan for the future. As we go through the new majority's 100 days, we need to understand that today's actions have consequences for our Nation. We must work together to ensure that our policies are based on hope, optimism, equality and justice. So I stand to honor African-Americans for their culture and achievements on this occasion tonight, but let us never forget we are all writing the next chapter in this important history. Let us make sure that our chapter is read by our children with price.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise today in strong support of the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment to maintain the Cops on the Beat Program. I have spoken several times now in support of the Cops Program, but it cannot be emphasized enough: Community policing works. The COPS Program will put 100,000 police on our streets--police that are involved in their communities and committed to keeping our families safe. COPS responds to the demands by the American people that we in Congress must do something to fight crime and violence. COPS is supported by virtually every national law enforcement organization. We must protect one of the strongest weapons we have in fighting crime: community oriented policing. If we truly want to take back our streets and improve the quality of life in our cities, police officers cannot do it alone. Local residents cannot do it alone--they must work together. That is exactly what community policing does--it allows police officers to work together with local community residents to fight crime. Now, certain Members of Congress want to eliminate this critical approach to crime prevention. I strongly oppose any efforts to cut community policing programs, and I ask my colleagues to take a good hard look at exactly what community policing does for our towns and cities. Community policing works--and it works because it asks the experts to create crime-fighting strategies. When I say experts, I am not talking about bureaucrats in Washington offices. When I say experts, I am talking about the people who actually live in neighborhoods plagued with crime--and I am talking about the police officers who patrol those neighborhoods every day. So when the crime bill says it will put 100,000 new community police officers on the beat, we must remember that those officers will know both the neighborhoods they patrol and the people in them. I personally have seen community policing work. As a city councilman in San Diego, I have worked hand in hand with neighborhood residents and community policing teams--and I have personally seen the effect that this partnership has had on crime. The police officers become real human beings to the neighborhood residents--and the people who live in the neighborhoods become real human beings to the police officers there to protect the peace. Mr. Chairman, these tactics work. The city of San Diego has established neighborhood policing teams in even the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates--and a recent study pointed out that overall crime has been reduced in the city by 10 percent. Yes, we need to be tough on crime. We need stiffer penalties, and we need to make sure that criminals serve the full jail sentences they deserve. But we also need to work together as communities. And what the crime bill proved last year was that Congress was serious about fighting crime and that Congress had enough forethought to make it a comprehensive fight. Let's not move backward this week. I ask my colleagues to understand the central role of community policing in fighting crime. And I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment--and protecting this effective crime prevention program.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Schumer. As a former City Council member, I have been fighting throughout my career to demand that local governments get direct funding and flexibility. But in this case, I seriously question whether H.R. 728 will give local governments the true flexibility they want. Although H.R. 728 claims it will allow cities to spend money on whatever they want, the bill does not supply enough funds to sufficiently support the comprehensive crime-fighting initiatives of our cities. In practice, H.R. 728 would result in cities sacrificing prevention programs, without guaranteeing that any police officers would be added. This is a decision no city wants to make-because locally-elected officials know that crime prevention works. The City of Chula Vista in my district has urged Congress not to cut funding for the successful prevention programs they have initiated. And the National League of Cities recently stated that any anti-crime legislation must include support for anti-drug abuse, crime and violence prevention programs. But up here in Congress, supporters of today's bill clearly do not see crime prevention as important. And these Washingtonians are imposing that belief onto our local governments by refusing to supply cities with the funds they need to truly fight crime in a comprehensive way. H.R. 728 would eliminate the desperately needed community policing and crime prevention programs of last year's crime bill, and without this amendment, cut nearly $2.5 billion from the money intended to go to local crime fighting. This would destroy the crime bill's wise and reasonable balance between enforcement, punishment, and prevention. We need stiffer penalties and we need to keep criminals off our streets, but we also need crime prevention programs to stop crime before it starts. Crime prevention works. It works when school and community-based programs give kids a place to go after school and give them something positive to do. It works when police officers forge relationships with at-risk youth and teach them how to stay from crime. And it works when drug abuse programs rehabilitate individuals and get them back into the work force. In San Diego, a program called Safe Haven has been particularly successful, and I would like to read a bit about that program from an article recently printed in the San Diego Union Tribune. Until Anthony Majadi established a Safe Haven program in Southcrest Park a year ago, prostitution flourished in the parking lot, basketball players brought booze to the gym and the drug trade dominated. The park is now a different place. With a budget of $160,000, Safe Haven helped hundreds of children and adults through its myriad activities, including instruction in martial arts and computers, homework assistance, summer day camp and other programs. Safe Haven is part of a national program and federal government established to complement seeding efforts in the Weed and Seed target areas. Safe Haven is held out as an example of what weed and seed can do--benefit a community beyond drug raids and gang sweeps. Programs like Safe haven make our neighborhoods safer, they improve the lives of our children, and they bring tremendous cost savings to our criminal justice system. In the words of a concerned citizen in my district: ``Killing funding for crime prevention programs demonstrates a disheartedly shortsighted, simplistic and self-defeating approach to the Nation's crime problems.'' This debate should not pit prevention against enforcement. We need them both. We need to combine them in a comprehensive approach to fighting crime. And it is irresponsible for Federal lawmakers to make local governments choose between the two. We have to address the causes of crime--not just the symptoms. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment--and to join me in continuing the long-term strategy to crime control that we started last year.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I am here to join with my colleagues and following the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] in rising in opposition to H.R. 728, the so-called Law Enforcement Block Grants Act. What H.R. 728 does is reduce our commitment to putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets of this Nation, and it eliminates, yes, it eliminates the emphasis that has proved so important in cities all across this Nation, and that is the emphasis on community oriented policing. Every national police organization virtually opposes H.R. 728 and the concepts included therein. They know that community policing works. They know that H.R. 728 provides no guarantees that a single penny of these new block grants will actually go to the police forces of our Nation. I represent a good part of the city of San Diego, the sixth largest city in this Nation, a city that has many urban problems, where crime is considered the No. 1 concern. We in San Diego have pioneered the concept of community oriented policing over the last decade. I served on the San Diego City Council for 5 years before I came to Congress and have direct experience with the walking teams, the neighborhood concepts that we have instituted. I represent neighborhoods that have traditionally been hostile to police forces because of certain history and certain behavior and certain attitudes. Yet those same neighborhoods literally gave standing ovations to the cops that now serve their neighborhoods. They know that community policing works, because it allows those police officers to get to know the neighborhoods that they actually patrol and allows the people in those neighborhoods to get to know them. You will not find the officers on the walking patrols in San Diego sitting behind desks or processing mail. They are out there on the streets, in the schools, in the neighborhoods, in the children, knowing the merchants, and actually being effective in the fight against crime. We have seen partnerships form, as community and police forces work together to fight crime. In San Diego in every major category of crime we have seen a reduction of at least 10 percent in the last year alone. Community policing works. We should not allow it to go as H.R. 728 provides. Let us make sure that our comprehensive fight that we have mandated in the crime bill last year proceeds. Let us not move backward. Let us oppose the cut to community policing. Let us defeat H.R. 728.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to honor a good friend and community leader who passed away this week--Lawrence Schwartz, or Larry to all of his many friends. I count Larry as one of my closest personal friends and mentors. He was, first and foremost, an educator--like myself, a history professor. He taught U.S. history and political science at San Diego City College from 1966 to 1987, when he left to become president of the San Diego Community College Guild, Local 1931, of the American Federation of Teachers. As the nation's chief negotiator, Larry established a degree of civility in negotiation that has carried through to today. Faculty salaries at San Diego community colleges increased by 40 percent between 1987 and 1991, due in large part to Larry's rapport and negotiation with administrators. He never lost touch with students, however. They recognized that Larry's deep involvement with the issues of the day gave depth, conviction, and meaning to his teaching. They responded to the substance of Larry's courses precisely because he gave life to traditionally dry and purely academic exercises. We both had roots in New York, and our lives converged again in the 1960's when we joined the civil rights movement. Larry was active for years in Democratic political campaigns and served as a delegate to the National Democratic Convention in 1972. He served on the local executive board of the American Civil Liberties Union. He led protests against the Vietnam war. He was held in high esteem by his students, well respected by his peers, and recognized statewide for his work. He was dearly loved by his friends and his family. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Rosalie, and his children. Educator, union negotiator, activist, husband, father, and friend-- Larry had a special bond with everyone he met. He believed, as I do, that one person can make a difference--and his life was a living example of that belief. We need many more people like Larry Schwartz. He will be missed.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the Line Item Veto Act. I urge us to think very clearly about the important mechanism of checks and balances that I believe will be irreparably damaged if we accept the line item veto. Article I of the U.S. Constitution--the only contract we really have with America--addresses the duties of Congress. The Founding Fathers gave the power of the purse to Congress, and not to the President. Why, in their wisdom, did they do so? Constitutionalists will tell us the answer lies in the old saying, ``the President proposes, the Congress disposes.'' It is the legislative branch that is charged with dealing with the details that are so important to every piece of legislation that we see in this, the ``people's Chamber.'' It is tedious and often thankless, but it is part of our agreement with each and every American who cast their votes for us every 2 years. We hear so much talk these days about term limits and how much better they would make our legislative process. The President already has term limits. Combine that with this line item veto, and what the American people will get is a chief executive with unlimited, unchecked power to unilaterally pick and choose projects to reject. This should not be construed as an attack against the judgment of the current President. On this issue, I am strictly nonpartisan. Nothing should interfere with the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of Government. I caution us to resist the temptation of bumper sticker politics.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one of the strongest weapons we have in fighting crime, and that is community- oriented policing. I join my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who has taken a strong lead in this, and other colleagues who will follow me, on what we believe to be the direction that our communities ought to be taking with the support of our Congress. If we truly want to take back our streets and improve the quality of life in our cities, police officers cannot do it alone. Local residents cannot do it alone. They must work together. That is exactly what community policing does. It allows police officers to work together with local community residents to fight crime. Now certain Members of Congress want to eliminate this critical approach to crime prevention. And I strongly oppose any efforts to cut community policing programs, and I ask my colleagues to take a good, hard towns and cities. Community policing works, and it works because it asks the experts to create crime-fighting strategies. When I say experts, I am not talking about bureaucrats in Washington offices. When I say experts, I am talking about the people who actually live in the neighborhoods plagued with crime. I am talking about the police officers who patrol these neighborhoods every day. So when the crime bill says it will put 100,000 new community police officers on the beat, we must remember that these officers will know both the neighborhoods they patrol and the people in them. I talk from experience. I served on the city council of the city of San Diego for 5 years. San Diego is the sixth largest city in the Nation. My district, both on the city council and in Congress, includes some of the poorest areas of our city, areas which both have high crime and also a traditional fear of and hostility toward police officers. Yet we established in those areas of highest crime and highest fear walking patrol teams, teams of police officers who got to know their communities and the communities got to know the cops. They all had beepers that could be paged at any time. They all had first names, which the residents knew, and they got to know the kids in the community. They got to know the storekeepers in the community. They got to know the seniors. They knew where people lived and worked and played, and a confidence developed. I tell the Members, I am one of the few city councilmen in this Nation, I thought, that could walk into a meeting of people in my district, working people, poor people, and the cops would get a standing ovation from those residents, because they had established the trust. They had established the confidence. Mr. Speaker, I have worked hand-in-hand with neighborhood residents and community policing teams. I have seen the effect this partnership has had in reducing crime. The police officers become real human beings, and the cops become real human beings. They are there working together. Mr. Speaker, the first year we established in San Diego the walking teams, crime went down a minimum of 10 percent in every major category. However, more than this, more than the rate going down, fear went down in those communities. The community got involved in fighting the crime. The cops had a stake in that community. The cops felt accountable. There were real, objective reasons why the crime rate went down. Yes, we need to be tough on crime. We need stiffer penalties. We need to make sure criminals serve their full sentences. However, we also need to work together as communities. What the crime bill proved last year was that Congress was serious about fighting crime. We had enough foresight to make it a comprehensive fight and a comprehensive effort. Mr. Speaker, let us not move backward from this effort. Let us understand the central role of community policing in fighting crime. Let us join together to oppose any cuts in these critical programs. It works. The people have confidence in their police force. The police force know the people they are working with and protecting. The crime rate goes down, and community spirit goes up. Let us keep it.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I from San Diego introduced a bill to amend the Clean Water Act to allow San Diego to treat it sewage in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner. This has been a long fight for many of us. I have been fighting against nonsensical Fed requirements for more than 6 years. These efforts began when I was a member of the San Diego City Council. During this time, I often found myself on the losing end of 7 to 2 votes--because a majority of my city council did not want to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency. But I was convinced--by my own research and the testimony of scientists from the San Diego was already doing the right thing for our environment. By 1992, my colleagues on the San Diego City Council came around and agreed with my position--that the requirement to upgrade the Point Loma treatment plant to secondary standards was ridiculous. When I first ran for Congress, I promised to solve this sewage problem. And one of the first bills I introduced as a freshman in the 103d Congress was H.R. 3190, which is very similar to the bill that five of us introduced today. But, unfortunately, here in Congress, I also met with resistance. I was told other cities were required to meet the secondary treatment standards, why should San Diego be treated differently? I made it clear that my bill would in no way compromise the integrity of the Clean Water Act. In fact, by amending the law with common sense changes based on science, my legislation would ensure that the Clean Water Act had the flexibility needed to deal with unique situations and at the same time protect America's waters. Mr. Speaker, let me explain. Existing law requires every city-- regardless of environmental conditions and circumstances--to treat sewage at the secondary level. Yet scientific studies have proven that sewage treated at the chemically enhanced advanced primary level of treatment used by the city of San Diego, which removes over 80 percent of suspended solids in the sewage and discharges the treated effluent more than 4 miles out to sea at depths greater than 300 feet, does no environmental harm. In fact, eliminating power-consuming secondary treatment and the additional sludge it would produce would spare the environment from pollutants associated with wastewater treatment. The city of San Diego is blessed with unique environmental conditions. The Continental Shelf drops off very sharply from the California coast. There is a very active ocean current. It also has an ocean outfall that is specifically engineered to maintain its surrounding waters so that our citizens can swim, fish, or boat with total confidence in our water quality. By the end of the last session, my colleagues in the Congress agreed with my position and unanimously passed my bill to allow San Diego to apply for a waiver from the requirements of the Clean Water Act. And I have every confidence that this Environmental Protection Agency will approve San Diego's application for a waiver. So why introduce another bill? Because this new legislation will ensure that San Diego will not have to jump though any more regulatory hoops. Mr. Speaker, it costs more than $1 million to prepare an application for a waiver--and these waivers are temporary. The waivers are only good for a 5-year period. What is to prevent another administration from reversing its position and unilaterally trying to force San Diego to spend billions of dollars in unnecessary upgrades to its sewage treatment system? After all, history shows that the two previous administrations vigorously pursued such a lawsuit against San Diego. There is scientific proof that this legislation is good environmental policy. Scientists from the highly respected Scripps Institution of Oceanography have concluded that upgrading from advanced primary to secondary treatment--the treatment required by current law--would have virtually no positive impact on our ocean's ecology. In other words, the incredible costs for a small incremental increase in the purity of wastewater discharged into the ocean could not be justified by any measurable environmental gain. I have led the fight against this unnecessary requirement since the time I served as a member of the San Diego City Council--that's over 6 years now. Today's action is the first time that the entire San Diego congressional delegation has united in this effort. And I applaud my colleagues for making this amendment a priority. I hope that all of my colleagues in the 104th Congress will agree with us. As this regulatory dance comes to its grand finale, the big winner will be the ratepayers of San Diego.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, a Democratic President and Congress passed a budget that cut the deficit by more than $600 billion over 5 years and produced real deficit reduction for 3 consecutive years--the first time this has happened since World War II. The question today is: How should we build on this success? Should we now pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Seeing the passionate fervor that was driving this amendment's sponsors, I began to ask my Republican colleagues the magic formula for achieving this budget miracle. With envy, I assumed my colleagues had already concocted the recipe for balancing our budget and were now simply applying the finishing touch: A constitutional requirement to do that which they had already devised. My envy turned to curiosity. Like Roger Moore from the movie ``Roger and Me,'' I set out through the Halls of the Capitol searching for the magic budget plan. I checked in the offices, the cloak rooms, and the chambers. I secret plan. But it soon became clear: There is no plan behind the balanced budget amendment. ``How can we say what we will do, if we cannot say how we will do it?'' The means are at least as important as the ends. Unless the end is simply the next reelection campaign. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support an amendment that presents a bottom line without a plan to get us there. When faced with a constitutional requirement, how will the Congress feel about ensuring the construction of the vital international sewage treatment plant being built on the United States-Mexico border in my district? Or protecting seniors from drastic cuts in Social Security? Or retaining San Diego's status as a navy mega-port? Or funding vital infrastructure to handle United States-Mexico commerce? Or keeping our promise to our area's veterans? We all want a balanced budget. But that budget should not destroy our economy or attack our children, our senior citizens, our veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the violence continues and the death toll rises once again. In the wake of the recent clinic violence in Massachusetts, 25-year-old Shannon Elizabeth Lowney and 38-year-old Leanne Nichols are dead, five people are injured, and an entire Nation sits paralyzed by fear and shock. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to the families of Shannon and Leanne. To them we offer this promise: We will not allow these women's lives to be lost in vain and we will not allow their sacrifice to be dismissed as mere casualties of a political conflict. These were not combatants--these were health care professionals. They were brutally murdered by those that seek to do through terrorism what they can never do through the ballot box. The time has come for an end to clinic violence. An end to the lame excuses offered on behalf of the offenders. An end to the fear that grips professionals, patients, and ordinary Americans throughout our Nation. An end to the sick belief that violence will reap political empowerment. Our Nation must act quickly to bring to justice both the assassins and those who incite them. Make no mistake: There is no greater threat to our national security today then the domestic terrorists roaming America under the cover of anti-choice politics. Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Bayard Britton, Lt. Col. James Barrett, Shannon Elizabeth Lowney, and Leanne Nichols are gone forever, but their cause, the cause of freedom, lives on in all of us. Our challenge is clear, our resolve unwavering, and our cause is just. We pause now to remember those who have died, but we will not give up our freedoms and we will not capitulate to terrorism. These women expect better of us, and better we must do to honor their memory.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to many of the elements of this package. While there are some admirable portions--for which I would vote if they stood alone--the package as a whole must be defeated! When we carefully examine what these rules will do, we discover they are not reforms at all, as has been promised, but steps that actually reduce our ability to serve the public and increase opportunities for purely partisan activity. Eliminating the Post Office and Civil Service Committee would be a disservice to the many retirees who have dedicated their lives in service to their country! I have received many letters and calls from seniors who are extremely concerned about this action. Eliminating the legislative service organizations will make it more difficult to get a fair hearing for any program or analysis that goes in a different direction from that of the new majority. In 1992, Congress went through a concerted effort in the aftermath of the House Post Office scandal to make the House administration a non- partisan activity, reporting in a bipartisan manner to Congress. This was true reform. But the proposed rule would eliminate the nonpartisan Doorkeeper's Office--and open a backdoor to partisan manipulation. The new Speaker's Office is another attempt to consolidate power in a partisan manner--eliminating the progress that has been made in protecting the rights of both the minority and the majority and in fostering full debate of issues before this legislative body. In addition, this rule prevents some of our duly-elected Representatives from voting in the Committee of the Whole House, including the representative from Washington, DC--leaving the Capital's citizens with taxation without representation. Talk about moving backwards! We must preserve the rights of the majority and the minority. We must preserve the votes of all Representatives. We must be cautious about reform that ends up costing more money and decreasing our ability to truly debate ideas. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this package.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unconstitutional measure. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise in opposition to the requirement for a super-majority of three-fifths of the House of Representatives to increase income taxes. This measure may sound good to our constituents. Many Americans are upset at all of their taxes: Federal income taxes, State income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. I share their sentiments--it is imperative that we provide middle-class Americans with meaningful tax relief. So why am I voting against this supposed reform? Quite simply because it threatens the very foundations of our democratic society and violates the American tradition of majority rule. The Founding Fathers explicitly rejected the notion of supermajorities at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. As Alexander Hamilton said, we should not ``give the minority a negative on the majority.'' James Madison was even more specific. With a supermajority, he said, ``the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power transferred to the minority.'' Let us not try to solve one problem by creating worse ones. Let us all work together to provide middle-class taxpayers with real and meaningful tax cuts. But let us not attack the very foundation of our free society--the American Constitution. It has served us well for over 200 years--let's keep it.