Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the achievement of Christian Perez, an eighth grade student at Bill E. Young Middle School in Calipatria, a small city in Imperial County, California. Christian, who is 14, recently participated in the first ever regional Scripps Howard Spelling Bee in Imperial County. As most are aware, the winner of the regional Scripps Howard Spelling Bee moves on to the nationals held here in Washington, D.C. to face students from across the country. To prepare for the Spelling Bee, contestants, like Christian, dedicate a large portion of their young lives to the Herculean task of memorizing and learning thousands of words, which in itself is worthy of Congressional recognition. Despite stiff competition and some very tense moments, Christian won the regional Spelling Bee upon correctly spelling ``synapse.'' The 170 people who were watching the Spelling Bee at the Southwest Performing Arts Theater in EI Centro gave Christian a standing ovation. When asked about the competition, Christian said, ``she felt relieved as soon as the competition was over and . . . her only dilemma might be which sister to take to nationals in early June.'' Christian's story, however, doesn't end there. Unlike other contestants, who had a wide assortment of dictionaries and word lists to review, Christian's preparation was a little more arduous, as all of her study materials had to be in Braille. Fortunately, Christian did not let lack of sight stand in her way of becoming the spelling champion of Imperial County!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, since the creation of the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, the Nation's doctors of chiropractic have been kept outside and all but prevented from providing proven, cost-effective and much-needed care to veterans, including those among the most vulnerable and in need of the range of the health care services that doctors of chiropractic are licensed to provide. In 2002, 4.5 million patients received care in VA health facilities, including 75 percent of all disabled and low-income veterans. Although the VA health care budget was roughly $26 billion in 2002, less than $370,000 went toward chiropractic services for veterans. This, in a country with more than 25 million chiropractic patients and more than 60,000 Doctors of Chiropractic. I am proud to introduce legislation--H.R. 917, The Better Access to Chiropractors to Keep Our Veterans Healthy Act (BACK Our Veterans Health Act)--that is designed to provide veterans with direct access to a Doctor of Chiropractic, if that is their choice, through the veterans health care system. In developing this bill, I have worked closely with chiropractic patients, particularly our veterans, who know the benefits of chiropractic care and bear witness to the positive outcomes and preventative health benefits of chiropractic care. Specifically, my bill seeks to amend Title 38 of the United States Code to permit eligible veterans to have direct access to chiropractic care at VA hospitals and clinics. Section 3 of the measure states that ``The Secretary [ of Veterans Affairs] shall permit eligible veterans to receive needed [health care] services, rehabilitative services, and preventative health services from a licensed doctor of chiropractic on a direct access basis at the election of the eligible veteran, if such services are within the State scope of practice of such doctor of chiropractic.'' The measure goes on to directly prohibit discrimination among licensed health care providers by the VA when determining which services a patient needs. Over the years, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs have come before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, a panel on which I serve, and have insisted that chiropractic benefits are available to veterans and that no bias exists within the VA against the chiropractic profession. But the facts I cited above speak otherwise. For all practical purposes, access to chiropractic care has been non-existent within the VA system. Chiropractic care has so seldom been offered to veterans that it can be fairly said to be a phantom benefit--and for years, Mr. Speaker, the VA has done nothing to correct this deficiency. There is simply no evidence that the VA has ever acted proactively in any meaningful and substantive way to ensure that chiropractic care is made available to veterans--and because of that track record of neglect, the U.S. Congress felt compelled to take action. As a result, Congress in recent years has enacted three separate statutes seeking to ensure veterans access to chiropractic care (Public Law 106-117, Public Law 107-135 and Public Law 108-170). The last of those statutes gives explicit authority to the VA to hire doctors of chiropractic as full time employees. I'm proud to have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help advance those initiatives--and I am hopeful that a reluctant VA has finally seen the light. I understand that, last year, former VA Secretary Principi released new policy directives regarding chiropractic care and that we may be on our way to seeing the true and full integration of chiropractic care into the VA. But Mr. Speaker, if the past is any guide to the future, then I must remain concerned until I see these new polices firmly in place and working well in all VA treatment facilities. To help ensure that, in the future, barriers to veterans who want and need chiropractic care are fully removed, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would require the VA to make chiropractic care available on a direct access basis to our veterans. Perhaps my legislation will prove not to be necessary--because referrals to doctors of chiropractic will actually take place with the encouragement and support of the leadership of the VA. But as insurance, the enactment of the legislation I propose would guarantee the right of a veteran to obtain this important service without the cost and stumbling blocks of going through potentially hostile gatekeepers. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting unimpeded access to chiropractic care throughout the veterans health care system and help enact this measure, H.R. 917.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, on S. 686, I did not attend in protest of the politicization of a profound medical and family tragedy. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, Verna Lee St. Clair King, born and reared in Berwick, Louisiana, is the daughter of John Westley St. Clair and Florence Ellen Calvin St. Clair. Educated in Louisiana and Texas, she earned her A.B. degree from Wiley College in Marshall, Texas and later an M.A. from San Diego State University. Verna grew up determined to make life better for others. She eventually became a teacher, making politics and helping others through community service her lifelong hobbies. Her intelligence and insight led her to the political arena and the fight for equal education. A professional educator in San Diego for thirty years, Verna has a long history of involvement with the San Diego Teachers' Association (SDTA). Through the SDTA, she represented the National Education Association and served as a member of the National Women's Caucus and Black Caucus. Verna's unselfish nature led her to become increasingly involved in a wide array of civic activities: she was vice-chair of the 79th Assembly District Committee, served on the 44th Congressional Advisory Committee, and was a charter member of the San Diego Council of Democratic Women. In addition, she is a charter member and past president of Women Inc. She is also involved with Alpha Kappa Alpha, CTA, the YWCA, her church, and the Democratic Party. In addition, she has recently served on the Community Service Association Board as well as the San Diego Historical Site Board. Verna's involvement in the community and politics has allowed her to interact and work with individuals such as Coretta Scott King, Andrew Young, Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, Alan Cranston and Tom Bradley. Verna is listed in prominent annuals and has received many awards in recognition of her professional and community service. In the past, she has been the recipient of the Democratic Committee's Golden Key Award and received a Key to the City of San Diego for her outstanding work in the field of human relations. For bridging the gap between parents and teachers, Verna was honored with an Honorary Service award by the Ninth District P.T.A. Her current honors reflect the esteem in which she is held by her fellow professionals and by those who have had the pleasure of working with her in political and community activities. Verna's husband, Alonzo King, now deceased, shared her interests both politically and professionally. In addition, Verna and Alonzo were blessed with a close family that included five children: Joyce L. King Thomas, Verna Lee E. Bickerstaff, St. Clair King, Alonzo King, and Reginald King, the latter two of whom are deceased. Verna has always been gracious in all of her endeavors, and her knowledge and experiences have been invaluable to professionals, friends, fellow committee members and the community. She truly has been an inspiration to all San Diego.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Of course.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be read.

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

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked me a question. Including the VA that says that we have enough money.

Mr. FILNER. The VA says we do not have enough money. . . .

Mr. FILNER. No, it is not.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, in last year's appropriation bill, that hospital was awarded close to $100 million for seismic refitting, retrofitting for earthquake safety.

Mr. FILNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, yes, in last year's appropriation bill, La Jolla Medical Center was one of a variety of hospitals, I think about two dozen.

Mr. FILNER. Many times.

Mr. FILNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FILNER. La Jolla.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, whatever the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) suggests, I would consider.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, look, everybody wants efficiencies in this system; but I will say, for a paralyzed veteran with a spinal cord injury, there is no better place than the VA to get care. To keep that quality of care for those veterans requires investment in our system. We are all looking for efficiencies but I will tell you there is no independent person, including the VA.

Mr. FILNER. Once again we are using the rules to block a commonsense amendment. It seems to me that the chairman has deeper issues than a blocking of the thing on a procedural ground and feels that the VA is not doing its job. That is obviously a deep issue that we ought to discuss, but that should not lead him to block this amendment. In addition, the only way I could judge the sincerity of the majority party in these issues is to see what they had done to the chairman of the committee I have sat on for the last 12 years; that is, the VA Committee. The chairman was removed from that job, purged from that job because he stood up for veterans. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman will join me on a mission as I join him on a mission for accountability and efficiency to convince the leadership of his party to put back on that committee members of the committee who actually fight for veterans. Once again, I think the veterans of this Nation ought to understand that the rules of this House can be waived for anything that the majority party wants, but when it comes to the veterans of this Nation, they refuse to waive the rules.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I call this the ``Let U.S. Veterans Rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan'' amendment. Once again, I rise in support of the veterans of our Nation. We have a major, major, major operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill on the floor today appropriates a sum of $81 billion, and we will be spending over $200 billion. It seems to me that we ought to guarantee jobs to veterans with companies that are awarded government contracts from this fund. Our active duty are fighting, but those who volunteer to go and help in other ways should have the preference that their veterans' service offers. We have all rallied to support our troops, but often after they come home, our veterans are not treated with the respect they deserve. I outlined yesterday the lack of respect that they will have and continue to have because of lack of adequate funding in the health care system. PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, will not have the funding that is needed to treat what is expected to arise out of the current war. As I said yesterday, research funds are being cut, nurses' positions are being cut. I tried yesterday to put an amendment on the floor that would supplement this supplemental with an additional $3 billion that the veterans groups think and have testified and have outlined is necessary. That $3 billion was not added in yesterday's supplemental. So today I ask that we ensure that there are jobs for our Nation's veterans, whether they are new or old. Let us give them the preference that they have in law at home with the preference for the contracts that are being awarded with such abandon in the Middle East today. We know, if we do not serve our veterans with jobs or health care, what occurs. We know that up to half of the homeless on the streets today are veterans, mainly from Vietnam, because we did not give them the honor, the respect, the health care, the jobs, the housing that they needed. And so they are on the street after having fought for this country. One way to make sure that this does not happen to anyone else is to include veterans in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them fought for freedom for those nations. Let us get them involved in the effort to build the future. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the rules are not invoked here once again to stop a commonsense approach to helping our veterans in this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, I know how reluctant the chairman is. This is a supplemental budget. By definition it goes beyond whatever we did in the previous year. That is why it is called a supplemental. And by some technical mumbo jumbo, he has managed to say that this supplemental is not subject to the rule that he just read. Through technicalities, through arcane kinds of things, he is saying that the veterans of this Nation are not entitled to this care because he is using a rule which is not being used for the $81 billion that we have on the floor but is used for this $3 billion that we are trying to use for our Nation's veterans. Madam Chairman, I understand these rules, and I understand these technical points of order. They are designed to protect certain amendments and not have others. Fine. But when one uses that rule to shut out the veterans of this Nation, to shut out the troops that are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, from the care that they deserve and will need, we are going to shut down PTSD programs, Madam Chairman, all across this Nation, and yet every soldier and Marine is going to come back with potentially that disorder. So one can use all the rules, but what we are doing here is immoral, it is unconscionable, it is outrageous that we would be treating the veterans in this way.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I am labeling an emergency amendment. It is an emergency amendment because the money is needed for the veterans of this Nation, especially those who are returning from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan who may not be able to get the services they need for a variety of wounds, both physical and mental. Let me first say where I got the number of $3.1 billion. It is not just a figure grabbed from the air. Every year the veterans service organizations of this Nation put together a budget called the Independent Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is the one for 2006. What it says is that just to keep meeting the needs for our current veterans and those who we expect to see in the coming year, we will need an additional $3.1 billion than was allocated by the President in his budget. We do not know what this House will adopt yet, so this figure is drawn from the inadequacies of the President's budget as he gave it to Congress recently. This is a supplemental budget for those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least that is the title. Let me make sure all the people of the House understand the relevance of the veterans budget for the war that we are fighting abroad. Here is what our first President, George Washington, said and it has never been done more eloquently: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' Mr. Chairman, the morale of our troops overseas depends on how we are going to treat their comrades when they return and how we treat their comrades who served in earlier battles. We are not treating them to the level that is worthy of their sacrifice. Whether you look at the amount of nurses, whether you look at research funds, whether you look at the resources for post-traumatic stress disorder for which virtually every returning soldier, Marine who is in Iraq and Afghanistan may have, wherever you look, there is a deficiency in this veterans budget. I call that an emergency. I call that important to the struggle that is being waged overseas. If you are voting for that struggle, you have to vote to make sure the veterans who come back from that struggle are well treated. Right now we have a proposal from the President which advocates a mere one-half of 1 percent increase in the veterans health care budget over the previous year. That is a real cut, because of health inflation and the advancing age and the needs of the population, to about a 14 or 15 percent cut by the administration's own figures. So we are cutting in real terms 15 percent from the veterans health care budget. How does the administration want to fund that cut? Doubling the copayments for prescription drugs, adding an enrollment fee of up to $250 for those in the so-called lower categories of veterans preference. That is outrageous. That is unconscionable to charge the veterans of this Nation for their own health care and to balance the budget on the backs of these veterans. The chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was not satisfied with having a $250 enrollment fee. He proposed doubling it to almost $500 for some of these veterans. These veterans are supposedly in lower categories, either because of the nature of their illness or their income. But, Madam Chairman, this Nation, this Congress has the funds to help all of these veterans to get the care that they need. Let me remind my colleagues, this is a $2.5 trillion budget that we are operating within our Nation. We have about a $400 billion deficit, a $7.5 trillion debt. We are spending several billion dollars a week in Iraq. Yet someone is going to say that we do not have the $3 billion that is necessary for our veterans? I reject that argument because this is a Nation that is worthy of its veterans. This a Nation that could put the money where it is needed. And this is a Nation that can do what is required for our veterans. We simply cannot charge these copayments. We simply cannot charge this enrollment fee. We simply cannot continue to have a VA that is gagged from informing veterans of their rights under law. That is what is happening in the VA today. My amendment to provide $3 billion extra will correct that injustice. Point of Order

Mr. FILNER

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

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I want to explain to my colleagues and to Americans across the country what happened here today on the floor of the House, especially what happened to the veterans of these United States, veterans of past wars, veterans of the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may be next. We had a supplemental budget, they call it, on the floor today, a budget for $81 billion to fund our war in Iraq and Afghanistan; and they called it a supplemental so they could do it over and above the regular budget so they do not have to pay for it in ways that you and I have to pay for things or our businesses have to pay for things. They just create a bigger deficit without accountability. So they are on their way to passing an $81 billion supplemental bill for our active duty troops; and yet when I brought on to the floor an amendment to that $81 billion that said let us put $3 billion into care for our veterans, those coming back from the wars today and those who have been in wars previous to this, I asked for a figure of $3 billion because that is what the veterans service organizations in this Nation said is what we need more than what the President requested in his recent budget proposal. So I brought on to the floor a $3 billion amendment to an $81 billion supplemental. Keep in mind that we have a $2.5 trillion budget. We have this year at least a $400 billion deficit. We have an existing debt of $7.5 trillion. We are spending $1 billion every 2 or 3 days in the Middle East, and yet they say we do not have the $3 billion for our veterans. That is what happened on the floor of the House today, my fellow Americans. They voted down the ability to deal with our veterans. Those who are coming back today from Afghanistan and Iraq, the vast majority have the potential of having post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD; and yet when they will need the services in the coming year, we will have reduced those PTSD services because of the cut in the budget that the President has proposed and this Republican Congress will approve. We will cut nursing care. We will cut research. We will cut prosthetic devices. But we will add more waiting time for those who want a mental health examination or a dental examination. We will add months and months and months to the waiting time for those who want their claims established. Yet when I asked today for $3 billion, the majority of this House said no. We can afford the $81 billion. It was for our active duty. We can afford a $7.5 trillion debt. We can go into deficits for $400 billion this year, but no, no, let us not pay that $3 billion for our veterans. I thought that was disgraceful. I thought that was unconscionable. I hope that when the Republican Members of this House go home, all the veterans across this country will say, how come you voted against that amendment to give $3 billion more for our health care? How come you did not respect our active duty, when they come home will not find the services? How come they negatively influenced the morale of our troops, because they know that they are not getting proper treatment back home? I hope people ask that to those Republican Congressmen who voted down my motion on a technicality, when we have veterans from World War II and since and coming back today who are suffering. Madam Speaker, I think that is disgraceful. I think the American people had better question this Congress about why they do not support the veterans of this United States.