Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 251, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation in this House that recognizes and honors the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces throughout the history of our great Nation. The first bill is H.R. 4425, called the Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act. Currently, prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted in war are eligible for a posthumous Purple Heart recognition. However, those who die of starvation, for example, or beatings or freezing to death are causes which are not eligible for the Purple Heart. Can this be right? There should be no false distinction indicating more courage or more sacrifice by some who died and less by others. All POWs who died in service to our Nation should be eligible for this Purple Heart recognition, and H.R. 4425 will allow all members of our armed forces who die while a prisoner of war, regardless of the cause of death, to be awarded this honor. This will apply to all wars, past and present. I am indebted to Rick and Brenda Morgan Tavares of Campo, California, and to Wilbert ``Shorty'' Estabrook of Murrieta, California, who brought this issue to my attention. Shorty survived the Tiger Camp death march during the Korean War and was imprisoned for over 3 years. Brenda's uncle, Corporal Melvin Morgan, died of starvation and beatings he suffered in 1950 at the age of 20 in Korea. Surely Corporal Morgan is deserving of a Purple Heart. I am also introducing H. Con. Res. 434, a resolution to commend all persons who were inducted for service in the United States Armed Forces during World War II. I repeat, inducted into service. This is a particularly fitting time for such recognition. We all witnessed last Saturday the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, being dedicated as a lasting symbol of our Nation's appreciation of these veterans. We are also approaching the 60th anniversary of D-Day on June 6, 2004, when tens of thousands of inductees, or draftees as they are usually called, were among the Allied Forces invaded Normandy, France. To provide a bit of history, the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was enacted 1 year after Germany invaded Poland, and the number of men to be inducted into the Armed Forces was increased 5 days after the United States entered World War II in December of 1941. Of the over 16 million uniformed personnel serving during World War II, 10 million were draftees. They distinguished themselves in war and peace, as we know, and Tom Brokaw has called them ``America's Greatest Generation.'' The Blinded Veterans Association of San Diego, California, and its President William Montgomery have asked for my help in gaining national recognition for the draftees in our Armed Forces, and I am honored to do so today. H. Con. Res. 434 commends the millions who were inducted during World War II and who served with great courage to advance the cause of freedom throughout this world. Taken together, these two pieces of legislation remind us of the gift of freedom that we have been given through the service and sacrifice of men and women who came before us. I urge my colleagues to support both H.R. 4425 and H. Con. Res. 434.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, today, our nation is at war--a war that should never have been started, a war without an exit strategy, a war without allies, and a war I will continue to oppose. Congress ought to be debating these issues--now! But what is not debatable is the fact that all of us in Congress support our dedicated men and women serving in harm's way. This bill is not perfect--and includes many very bad provisions. This hulking bill, authorizing well over half of our nation's spending every year, has often been the culprit in funding dangerous cost overruns and government spending waste. Just like last year's Defense Authorization bill, this bill authorizes previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons. The bill also authorizes $28 million to study the feasibility of developing a high-yield, earth penetrating nuclear weapon to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. Another troubling provision is the approval of the administration's request of $10.2 billion for ballistic missile defense programs--$1.1 billion, or 13 percent more than the current level. The total includes funding for the initial deployment of a national missile defense system based in Alaska and California. In today's world of terrorist cells scattered around the globe, this $10.2 billion expenditure is a wasteful boondoggle left over from another time. There were many good provisions that the Republican Leadership would not even allow the People's House to debate and vote on. These Democratic amendments related to the war in Iraq, and dealt with important issues, such as why money is going to the Iraqi National Congress despite repeatedly bad intelligence from them, affirmations of the Geneva Convention and training requirements, support for Reserves and National Guard, and the need for greater international military support. Shutting out a full debate on these issues is a great failing of this bill. Possibly most troubling is the lack of oversight Congress is exercising in this bill. Since the spring of 2003, Congress has appropriated more than $166 billion for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the last supplemental measure, the administration had been claiming additional funds would not be needed until next year. Unbelievably, the President's FY 2005 defense authorization request, in fact, contained no money for Iraq operations. However, the worsening situation in Iraq forced the White House last week to ask for an additional $25 billion for operations there this year--and the Armed Services Committee authorized the funding with little discussion on the floor. In essence, the President of the United States hasn't been honest with either the Congress or the American people about what this war is costing, and what funding he needs in the months, and potentially years, to come. The Congress missed a golden opportunity to discuss and debate the substance of the nation's deepening descent into Iraqmire. Despite these shortcomings, the bill contains many important provisions that are essential to our soldier's serving in combat. I strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, special pay and bonuses for reservists and active duty personnel, and improved housing provisions. The bill also includes an authorization for additional body armor and armored Humvees, which have been, tragically, in short supply over the last year in Iraq. I am very happy that after many of us have struggled for years to end the Survivor Benefit Penalty, the Republican Leadership has finally relented in this bill. Democrats have worked with veterans' and military officers' organizations to press for the elimination of the social security offset under the SBP by increasing the annuities paid to survivors of military retirees who are 62 or older from 35 percent of retired pay to 55 percent. This is a major victory for our nation's military retirees and their spouses. In addition, this bill contains a 2-year delay of the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAG), which I strongly support. This delay in the BRAC process is important to all of us in San Diego, and we all need to stand up to the President's desire to complete the next round of base closings as soon as possible. I hope the final bill stands up to the Presidential blustering threats of veto. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this bill because it keeps faith with our men and women in uniform, serving in combat halfway around the world.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is not healthy unless everyone is. I rise in strong opposition to the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments. It is true that hospitals in San Diego, Imperial County and throughout the border region need Federal assistance to pay for the uncompensated care they provide. Instead of debating H.R. 3722, however, I would prefer to debate and vote on my Pay Up! Act, H.R. 2848, aimed at offering full Federal reimbursement to hospitals for the service they provide to undocumented patents. My bill would not force nurses and doctors and other medical professionals to suddenly become de facto immigration officials. Unfortunately, the dangerous legislation that we are considering today would do exactly that: it would deny Federal reimbursement to emergency health service providers unless they agree to also serve as immigration agents. As California's Border Congressman, I can tell you this legislation would be a disaster for border communities. It would put an extra burden on our already overworked health care professionals, as they scramble to find the resources to collect and process patients' immigration information, biometric identifiers and financial data. This legislation will lead to fear and confusion among both documented and undocumented immigrant families, discouraging them from getting necessary medical attention for children, pregnant women, the elderly and others. In fact, this legislation could put everyone's health at risk. The University of California at San Diego Medical Center has warned that this bill ``could undermine public health by deterring those with contagious diseases from seeking care.'' This bill puts the lives of immigrants at risk. It puts our health care services at risk. It puts our public health at risk. On behalf of California's border communities, I urge my colleagues to not force doctors to spend their time figuring out which patients are in good standing with our complex immigration laws. I urge my colleagues to not force immigrant families to skip treatment for life- threatening medical problems because they fear deportation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 170, I was attending to official business in my congressional district, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, I was attending to official business in my congressional district, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 176, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 175, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 174, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 172, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 173, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 171, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for his leadership on this and join with my colleagues in calling for this resolution, which commemorates the 60th anniversary of the GI Bill of Rights. As the speakers before said, this is a perfect example of responsible and progressive government, and it was truly an economic stimulus package of far-reaching impact. Many authorities indicate that passage of this GI Bill of Rights paid for itself many times over and largely contributed to the post-World War II economic recovery. Millions of veterans were helped in their transition from soldier to citizen through unemployment compensation, education benefits, and down payment on houses. The chairman of the committee referred to the creation of the modern middle class. I can well remember after my father volunteered in World War II, the working-class family that I was a part of had to move in with relatives and was renting a very small apartment. After he came home, I remember 55 years later the incredible feeling of being able to move into our own home for the first time in our lives. With a few thousand dollars down payment, and with the new homes that were constructed by Levitt in New York, the American dream was made possible for working-class families, such as my own, with the help of the GI Bill of Rights. I will tell you that having a sense of your own home was incredibly beneficial to my own family. So it is appropriate as we approach the 60th anniversary of the bill's enactment that we look back and celebrate the accomplishments of the greatest generation. I would hope also that as we think about this GI bill, we look forward as well. We must honor the sacrifices of the men and women who make up the greatest generation, I think, by investing in the current generation of servicemen and women and provide them the necessary resources so they can succeed and continue the legacy of this greatest generation. There are a lot of ways to do that. The chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the committee, have bills, for example, to make mandatory the funding of our health care system rather than rely on the appropriations process each year, where we fall behind, further and further, on the adequate health treatment of our veterans. We must get this on to a mandatory funding kind of scheme so we can give our veterans the health care they deserve. The education provided for in the GI bill that we are celebrating today must be improved upon. We have tried to take steps forward, but right now it pays only $985 a month to veterans who are attending college. And that does not go too far. There is legislation, such as H.R. 1713, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act, that returns the GI bill to its original intent that we are celebrating today by providing full tuition to a public institution of higher learning, and books, fees, and a living stipend for veterans who are students. Interestingly enough, did my colleagues know there is one group in World War II who were denied their rights under this GI bill that we are celebrating today? The Merchant Marines. The Merchant Mariners of World War II did not come under this bill we are celebrating. They suffered the highest casualty rate of any of the branches of service, and we might say have become the forgotten service. No legislation was passed by this Congress to address their needs until 1988, when they too were granted a watered-down version of the GI Bill of Rights. I have legislation, H.R. 3721, it is called The Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II, which will grant them compensation to partially, because we can never really make up for it, the 40 years they went without benefits that we are celebrating today, benefits that could have provided them, too, with an education and a home loan and a small business loan. Other steps that we can take. We have a discharge petition number 8 sitting beside me that would help widows of veterans to achieve some measure of dignity in their old age. Those widows of servicemen and servicewomen who paid years into the Survivors Benefit Program will only get 35 percent of the retirement pension when they reach age 62. This is not sufficient for people to live on. This is not a sufficient thank-you for those who have been part of a family that have contributed to our Armed Forces and to our Nation's security. So let us think as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the GI Bill of Rights and celebrate that wonderful act, let us rededicate ourselves to the task that we have today. Let us honor past veterans by truly honoring present and future veterans in the best way possible by living up to the promises made by a grateful Nation.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The motion that the House has before it is really very simple. It instructs the House conferees on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act to insist on our House provision on section 415. Section 415 simply clarifies that all foreign-flag vessels that may be involved in a security incident in the United States must submit their vessel security plans to the Coast Guard for their review and approval before they enter the United States. It is pretty simple. We are trying to make sure that we do not have a terrorist incident caused by a ship coming to our shores. We have seen clear evidence that terrorists have the means and capability to use vessels as a weapon. We all know about the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Most recently, insurgents in Iraq blew up their boat filled with explosives when a U.S. boarding team tried to inspect their vessel. Two members of our Navy and one member of the Coast Guard died in that attack. When this Congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act in November of 2002, foreign vessel owners were clearly required to submit vessel security plans to the United States Coast Guard. They were prohibited from operating after July 1 of this year if those plans were not approved and if they were not operating in accordance with those plans. But in the month after this MTSA, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, was enacted, the Coast Guard went to London and agreed to amendments to the Safety of Life At Sea Convention to require security standards for all vessels engaged in international trade. These amendments are called the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, or as we refer to them, the ISPS Code. The Coast Guard never told Congress that they were intending to overturn the new security law by allowing foreign-flag vessels to enter the United States if their security plans were approved not by the Coast Guard but by the government in which the ship is flagged. As many Members know, thousands of ship owners choose to register their ships in so-called ``flag of convenience'' countries. The ship owners do this to save money because they know that these governments flaunt international law by not enforcing the international maritime conventions to which they are a party. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has learned a great deal about terrorism since 9/11. One thing we have clearly learned is that not every nation in the world is our friend. Each day hundreds of ships enter U.S. ports with dangerous and hazardous cargoes. A weapon of mass destruction, a biological agent could easily be smuggled aboard a vessel in a foreign port. Look at some of the largest registries in the world, like Panama, Malta and Cyprus, and you will find vessels that are often detained by the Coast Guard for violations of international safety laws. Now we expect those same governments to protect U.S. citizens by making sure that their vessels have adequately implemented security plans? Give me a break! I for one am not willing to delegate our security responsibilities to the governments of Panama or Malta or Cyprus. I raised this issue with the Coast Guard at two separate hearings. The Coast Guard argued that they do not have the resources to approve the security plans for the thousands of foreign-flag vessels that come to our country. I have a simple thing to say, as I said to the commandant: send us a budget request, and we will fight for every nickel you need to review and approve the foreign vessel security plans. The resources will be there if you ask for them. But do not compromise the security of our coastal communities and our whole Nation by placing our security in the hands of these foreign governments. When Congress wrote the Maritime Transportation Security Act in 2002, we realized that it is up to the United States Government through the United States Coast Guard to protect our citizens. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2443 to insist on the House provisions requiring all foreign-flag vessels, any one of which may be a potential terrorist threat, to submit their security plans to the Coast Guard for review and approval before they enter the United States. We ask this in law. We ask now to reinforce the law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I am still not sure where that line is. If I were to say that the Republican candidate for President misled us into this war, is that crossing the line?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I am not going to challenge the ruling of the Chair; but if the candidate of the Democratic Party is accused of condemning our troops, I find that crossing the line, inappropriate and wrong. We are allowed, the candidate is allowed at Senate hearings to make his voice known about the war in Vietnam. He did not condemn the troops. I am upset with the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says we do not support our troops. The gentleman says we want to cut and run. The gentleman says we have let our troops down. I will tell Members who have let our troops down: the administration that misled us into this war and did not tell us the truth, an administration that is incompetent, that does not provide the body armor for our troops, nor the armored cars. We have been told 25 percent of the casualties would have been prevented if this administration had been competent. I will tell Members who has let our troops down: those who did not instruct prison guards in the Geneva Convention and who led young people, brave young men and women, to the abuse of prisoners and led to our embarrassment worldwide. That is who is letting our troops down: an administration that has no plan for the peace. We have no idea what we are doing there or how to get out. That is who is letting our troops down. That is who is not supporting our troops. I yield the balance of responsibility to this administration.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. The candidate was personally attacked on this floor, and I ask for his words to be taken down.

Mr. FILNER. Do the rules of the House allow personal reference to a candidate running for the presidency of the United States?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.