Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

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

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would challenge the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am glad to have the opportunity to recognize and congratulate Dr. Willie E. Manley as a recipient of the Ambassador of Peace Award. I am honored to be presenting this award to Dr. Manley on Tuesday, June 24, 2003. Dr. Manley is one of 100 recipients from around the world. As the award states, it is granted to individuals who have dedicated their lives to promoting ``strong family life, interreligious cooperation, international harmony, renewal of the United Nations, a responsible public media, and the establishment of a culture of peace. Transcending racial, national and religious barriers, the Ambassadors for Peace contribute to the fulfillment of the hope of all ages; a unified world of peace wherein the spiritual and material dimensions of life are harmonized.'' Dr. Manley is certainly deserving of such an award. Dr. Manley's life has exemplified those very values. At home, he is the loving husband of Vertis, and the dedicated father of seven children. In addition to his work at the Greater Life Baptist Church, he is a community activist: he has traveled as a missionary to South Africa and West Africa; been a Goodwill Ambassador to Korea; and served as a past President of the NAACP San Diego Chapter. Simply by reading his resume, one realizes that Dr. Manley is a man who is dedicated in every way to his family, to his community, to his religion and to this world. He has worked at the local level, the national level and the international level; with the government, with non-governmental organizations, and at the grassroots. His work has focused on peace and understanding among the people of the world. He has worked to improve race relations in the San Diego area. He has also worked to promote inter-denominational and inter- religious relations in San Diego and around the world. Indeed, I can think of no better candidate for the Ambassador of Peace Award than Dr. Willie E. Manley.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise to salute Al Best as he is being honored at the ``Sixth Annual Community Tribute Banquet'' on June 22, 2003. He is being recognized for his tireless activism and community service on behalf of San Diego's Gay and Lesbian community. Al was born and raised in Colorado, was hired at the age of 18 by United Airlines, and in 1960 became United's Regional Convention Representative. During this time, he received his BS degree at the University of Colorado. In 1963, Al joined Frontier Air Lines as Southwest Regional Manager, based in Alburquerque, and two years later, he was named to the New Mexico State Aviation Board. He received his Masters' Degree from the University of New Mexico and his Ph.D from New Mexico State University. When Al first arrived in San Diego in 1975, he immediately became active in the community by volunteering and raising money for outstanding organizations such as The Center and the Metropolitan Community Church. He was one of the founders of Stepping Stone, a non- profit alcohol and drug recovery agency. In 1979, he made history by being the first openly gay person to run for the San Diego City, Council. Even though he was largely outspent and out raised by his opponents, he finished 5th out of 11 in the campaign. In 1985, Al became the first president of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club. In 1989, he was the first openly gay person appointed to San Diego's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He was also a member of Mayor Maureen O'Connor's Violent Crime Task Force. In 1990, he was the first openly gay person sworn into the San Diego Civil Service Commission and became its first openly gay president in 1992. In 1993, he was a co-chair for the Human Rights Campaign milestone March on Washington. He currently serves as Vice Chairman of Something Special Food Pantry, a volunteer organization that distributes food to men, women, children and families who have HIV/AIDS. Dr. Al Best has set an outstanding precedent for gay and lesbians in San Diego and has paved the way for future generations to come. He is truly one of the best in San Diego. I offer my congratulations to him on being honored at the ``Sixth Annual Community Tribute Banquet.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation with the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. McHugh). The purpose of our bill, called The Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act, H.R. 2442, is simply stated: Give law enforcement status to law enforcement officers. Many Federal officials, for example, the Border Patrol, are classified as law enforcement officers because that is a classification that comes with certain salary and retirement benefits. But many other officers, officer who are trained to carry weapons, who wear body armor, who face the same daily risk as law enforcement officers are not so classified. These officers, for example, inspectors who work for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs police officers, U.S. Mint police officers, Internal Revenue Service officers, and police officers in about two dozen other agencies, are not eligible for early retirement and other benefits designed to maintain a young and vigorous law enforcement workforce that we need to combat those who pose life-threatening risks to our society. The tragic irony, Mr. Speaker, is that the only time these officers are classified as law enforcement officers is when they are killed in the line of duty. Then their names are inscribed on the wall of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial right here in Washington. Let me say that again. It is only when they are killed that they are called law enforcement officers, and that is a tragic irony. My district encompasses the entire California-Mexico border and is home to two of the busiest world border crossings in the entire world, so I am very familiar with the work of border inspectors. They wear bulletproof vests, they carry firearms, and, unfortunately, have to use them. Most importantly, these inspectors are subject to the same risks as other officers with whom they serve side by side and who do have the benefits of law enforcement status. Our Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act will make important strides toward ensuring the safety of our country as these officers protect our borders, our ports of entry, our military and veterans installations and other sensitive government buildings. The bill ensures the strong and vigorous workforce necessary for our country to have the finest level of protection. Our country deserves no less, and these valiant officers who protect us deserve no less. Any cost created by this act is offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirements bill for these employees will reduce turnover, increase yield, decrease recruitment, and development costs and enhance the retention of a well-trained and experienced workforce. Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that these officers have dangerous jobs and deserve to be recognized as law enforcement officers, just like others with whom they serve, side by side, and who share the same level of risk. I encourage my colleagues to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and me in cosponsoring H.R. 2442, the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate James Matlack upon the occasion of his retirement as Director of the Washington, DC Office for the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). He will be honored at a reception on Wednesday, June 25th. James was born into a Quaker family in Moorestown, New Jersey and attended Quaker schools there and in Westtown, Pennsylvania, an early influence that led to his work at AFSC. He received his Bachelors Degree from Princeton University, his Masters Degree as a Fulbright Scholar at Oxford University in England, and his Ph.D. at Yale University where he was a Danforth Fellow and a Woodrow Wilson Scholar. He held a number of academic positions before joining AFSC. I first met James when he was on the faculty at Cornell University in the late 1960s. At the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, he served as the Master/Director of the Southwest Residential College. Later, he joined the faculty at Hampshire College, also in Amherst, while he was working as Executive Assistant to the President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees. Before joining the AFSC staff, James spent two terms on their National Board of Directors in the position of Vice Chairman of the Board. He was also Presiding Clerk of the Nationwide Peace Education Committee. In 1979, he was a member of the AFSC delegation to Vietnam and Cambodia, the first Western group to visit Phnom Penh after the fall of the Khmer Rouge. James has been a worldwide traveler on behalf of the work of AFSC, with trips to the Middle East six times, to Central America three times, and to Mexico. In 1983, he became Director of the AFSC Washington office. In this position, he has worked on a wide range of AFSC domestic and international issues, involving government officials, diplomats, policy experts, the news media, and like-minded advocacy groups. James also has served on the Board of Trustees of Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. Upon his retirement, he is joined in celebrating his accomplishments by his wife, his three children, and five grandchildren. His dedication and commitment to the work of the American Friends Service Committee have been monumental, and he will be missed. My sincere thanks and best wishes go to my friend, James Matlack. He has been a tireless advocate for peace, human rights, and civil liberties. He was one lobbyist that I and many of my colleagues heartily welcomed in our offices!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of S. 703. This designation that we do today is a fitting tribute to the distinguished career of Carl Curtis. As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) stated, he served the citizens of Nebraska for eight terms in the House and four terms in the Senate. He was a strong advocate for small business, agriculture producers and Social Security reform. In fact, he predicted very early in his career that Social Security would be a serious financial problem if the government did not plan for the future. We know he was a devoted family man, dedicated public servant, and distinguished elected official, and so it is both fitting and proper that we honor his civic contributions with this designation. I urge passage of S. 703. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern and many of our concerns over the regulatory uncertainty wrought by the recent Federal Communications Commission so-called triennial review decision. In fact, the FCC has made so many mistakes recently, I think that the initial stands for ``Forget Consensus in Congress.'' In this case, the FCC missed the opportunity to bring clarity to the rules that promote facilities-based competition and would spur investment and create jobs. Instead, it has punted the decision to the States, all 50 of them. This move will force more State proceedings, more regulatory uncertainly, and without a doubt, more delay. The telecommunications sector has certainly had its meltdown. It has already lost more than half a million jobs and $2 trillion in market value. And immediately after the February decision, the industry lost a total capital value of $15 billion. Wall Street certainly took note and downgraded the outlook for telecommunications companies. With this regulation stranglehold, these companies cannot effectively recover from recent losses, they cannot invest in expansion, and they cannot create or save American jobs. As many recent decisions show, we must hold the FCC more accountable.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 268, I was caught in traffic and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to speak about a military widow in my Congressional District who has written to me about her Military Survivor Benefits Plan, known as SBP. She writes: ``My husband, who served in the Army for 20 years, died in July, 1995. I was then 61 years old. I was doing okay, paying my monthly bills and having enough left for groceries, but when I turned 62, I was notified my SBP was reduced from $476 to $302. What a shock! This was my grocery money they took from me. I hope that nobody else has to go through what I have. I cry every day and night. Not only have I lost my husband, I lost my money, my pride, my dignity.'' These words from the widow of one of our nation's veterans should be seared into the mind of every member of Congress. Tomorrow, along with a number of my colleagues, I will be signing a discharge petition for H.R. 303, a bill to provide what is known as concurrent receipt to our disabled military retirees. If this law is passed, these retirees would be able to receive both their military retired pay, which they earned, and their VA disability compensation, which they deserve! As you know, both the House and the Senate passed concurrent receipt during the last session of Congress--and only in the Conference, was it diluted to almost nothing. We are again fighting to correct this grave injustice. I am here today to state that there is another equally deserving group that we must include in this fight--the widows of our military retirees! Not only are many of our military retirees being denied their rightful benefits while they are alive, their spouses are being denied their rightful benefits upon their death. The law to reduce the benefits received by military retired widows when they turn 65 is misleading and unfair. It is time to change this law! Most of these military widows are living on small incomes, but even people with substantial incomes would have a tough time coping with a reduction from 55 percent of their retirement benefits to 35 percent. My bill, H.R. 1592, the Military Survivors Equity Act, would immediately eliminate this callous and absurd reduction in benefits that now burdens our military widows. My colleague form Florida, Mr. Miller, has introduced H.R. 548, a bill that would increase the post-62 SBP annuity so that it reaches 55 percent of the military retired pay by 2007. Both bills fulfill the 2001 ``sense of Congress'' resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction. The passage of this legislation is a top priority for the Military Officers Association of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars has also voiced their support for these bills. The Democratic Salute to Veterans and the Armed Forces legislative package, recently released, also calls for an end to this unfair reduction of benefits. I encourage members from both sides of the aisle to work with Congressman Miller and me to stop the pain and anguish we are causing our military widows and to show respect for the tremendous sacrifices made by our veterans and their families. We must pass this legislation to make this the compassionate and effective Survivors Benefits Plan it should be.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute John D. Hull on receiving the ``Friend of the Labor Council Award'' from the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the working women and men of our community. John is Vice-President of SBC Communications, Inc. in San Diego, overseeing a region that includes San Diego, Orange and Imperial Counties, and the Inland Empire region of Southern California. Mr. Hull joined Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in 1974 following his graduation from college. He has held numerous management positions during this career, culminating in his appointment as Regional President for the San Diego in May 2001. He represents SBC on the boards of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, United Way of San Diego County and the American Heart Association--San Diego Chapter. During his career, John D. Hull has been an important friend of the hardworking men and women who are represented by the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council. I offer my congratulations to him on his receipt of the ``Friend of the Labor Council Award.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Daniel Espinoza on receiving the ``Labor Leader of the Year'' Award from the San Diego- Imperial Counties Labor Council, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the working women and men of our community. From the age of eighteen, Daniel has participated in and supported organized labor. He joined Theatrical Stage Employees, IATSE Local 122, in 1977 and been an active officer for the past 16 years. In 1993, Daniel became the youngest elected Business Representative in the history of Local #122 and is currently serving his fifth term. In addition, he serves on the Executive Board for the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, and is a founding member of the United Labor Foundation. Daniel has established a reputation of vigorously representing the members of Local 122 while still being responsive to the needs of the employer and their constant struggles with decreased funding for the arts. His commitment and dedication to the working men and women in the entertainment industry has led to successful organizational efforts at a number of San Diego area entertainment venues, including the La Jolla Playhouse, the California Center for the Arts Escondido, and the Audio Visual Technicians for the San Diego Marriott Marina and the Coronado Island Marriott Resort. Under his leadership, Theatrical Stage Employees #122 has increased its jurisdiction and stature in the San Diego entertainment community, and has more than doubled its membership. Daniel Espinoza exemplifies the high values, standards, and principles of the hard-working men and women who are represented by the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council. I offer my congratulations to him on his receipt of the ``Labor Leader of the Year'' Award.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to urge support for four bills that I have introduced to address several needs of our veterans and to ensure their well-being. The first bill (H.R. 1924) deals with education benefits. Last year, one very important piece of the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act that Congress passed was a provision that extends the time limit for members of the Selected Reserve to use their Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education benefits from 10 years to 14 years. Prior to the passage of this law, these MGIB participants had only 10 years from their release from military service to use these earned education benefits. Many times, veterans with families, work commitments, and economic difficulties are unable to fulfill all their requirements to receive a degree or certification within this 10 year period. In passing last year's Defense Authorization Act, Congress recognized this difficulty for members of the Selected Reserve. Also recognizing that 10 years may not be long enough for certain individuals, the VA Secretary has limited discretion to grant time extensions to those who are unable to use their benefits due to mental or physical handicaps. It is clear that life in 2003 can make it difficult to finish an education in the allotted time frame. I believe it is time to extend the time period for all the participants of the MGIB. Therefore, I have introduced H.R. 1924, ``The Montgomery GI Bill Flexibility Act'', which will allow all participants up to 14 years to complete their education. This bill will ensure that more of our veterans are able to avail themselves of the educational opportunity that the MGIB affords them-- the educational opportunity that they earned. A second bill, H.R. 1920, ``Let U.S. Veterans Rebuild Iraq Act'', does just what the title says. It would guarantee jobs to veterans with companies that are awarded government contracts to rebuild Iraq. We have all rallied to support our troops as they waged Operation: Iraqi Freedom. But often, after the troops come home, our veterans are not treated with the respect that they deserve. It is most important to ensure that there are jobs for our nation's veterans, both new veterans and older. We are still fighting homelessness among veterans, a national disgrace. One way to better the lives of many veterans is to include them in the job of rebuilding Iraq. They fought for freedom for Iraq. Let's get them involved with helping to secure the future for Iraq. My third bill, H.R. 1347, ``The Former Prisoners of War Equitable Dental Benefits Act'', is legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress and that passed the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. This bill is supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would eliminate the ``time of internment'' requirement for former prisoners-of-war (POWs) in order to be eligible for outpatient dental care benefits at the VA. No one can deny that former POWs have sacrificed greatly in defense of their country. Unfortunately, their sacrifices continue. Reports have shown that POWs are at higher risk for a number of disabling conditions associated with exposure to infectious disease, inclement weather, and malnutrition. Currently, the law states that eligibility for outpatient dental care benefits only applies to former POWs with 90 days or more of internment. As you can imagine, this time requirement has been difficult for the VA to administer and to justify to the veterans seeking dental care. Former POWs are often confused about this time requirement. Who could say that our POWs in Iraq did not suffer because they were not imprisoned for 90 days? H.R. 1347 eliminates the arbitrary distinction between former POWs who have all paid dearly for their service. Fourthly, I have learned that VA doctors are not allowed to prescribe more than a 1 month prescription for controlled drugs, such as pain killers used for chronic conditions. But many veterans who have these prescriptions have been treated with the same medications for years and show no signs of abuse. H.R. 1921, the ``Continuity of Care for Veterans with Chronic Conditions Act'', would allow VA doctors to write a three-months prescription for these veterans who demonstrate no sign of abuse of their medication. This bill would make it more convenient for sick veterans to get their medication and would ensure that no lag time exists when veterans are without their medication. Education, jobs, benefits, and prescriptions for our nation's veterans. I urge your support for this legislation!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to honor the life of Douglas Perry and to recognize his lifelong contributions to his community. He was born on February 8, 1920 in Somerville, Massachusetts and passed away earlier this week, on June 2, 2003. Doug was much more to me than a resident of my Congressional District, he was my friend. I first met Doug and worked with him when I served on the San Diego City Council. I immediately noticed his enthusiasm and his seemingly unlimited energy on behalf of the San Ysidro community where he lived. Because of his work, he was known as the unofficial ``Mayor of San Ysidro''. He moved to California in 1936 and served in the U.S. Navy, in North Africa and the Philippines, from 1942 to 1946. He met and married Jean Alexis Wadleigh in 1949, and they lived in the Inland Empire until their move to San Ysidro in 1974. He was involved in many roles in the activities and organizations of San Ysidro. He served as President, Executive Director, and Information Center Manager of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce and was instrumental in keeping the Chamber growing in membership. He organized and managed a Chamber Visitor's Information Center for several years, giving tourist information to thousands of visitors every month. It was through his efforts that the San Ysidro Chamber was designated the official Certificate of Origin supplier for the importation of goods by Mexican businesses--a vital part of the Chamber today. He took the lead in obtaining the first-ever fireworks in San Ysidro by developing plans for the Chamber to sponsor the first two years of exciting 4th of July displays and continuing to organize these yearly festivities. Doug was Chair of the San Ysidro Redevelopment Project Area Committee, Vice President of the San Ysidro Senior Center, Chair and Vice Chair of the Southern Area Committee, Board Member of the South Bay YMCA, and Vice President of the San Ysidro Senior Center. He made possible communication cable at the Senior Center, soliciting a free donation from Cox Cable. He was Treasurer of the San Ysidro Little League and was a member of Senior San Ysidrans. At the Sister of Nazareth, San Diego Mission, he was House Father for nine years. As a member of the Park and Recreation Council, Doug represented the San Ysidro Recreation Council, supported their Annual Christmas events, acquired a big screen TV by soliciting donations, and raised funds for the La Mirada School Joint Use Turf Project. He played a significant role in opening the building at Larsen Sports Field, Cesar Chavez Community Center. He worked in obtaining Beyer Undeveloped Park. He further obtained funding for the Coral Gate Neighborhood Park and the Larsen Field Parking Lot expansion, security lights and ball field renovation. All in all, he raised tens of thousands of dollars for projects and special events in San Ysidro. He worked to get donations for the Annual Food Drive. As you can see, Doug's commitment was to the community as a whole. Doug was joined in all of his endeavors by his wife of 52 years. Together, they had four children: Philip Perry of Escondido, California, Kim McCormick of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Brooke Barbee of Alta Loma, California, and Craig Perry of Upland, California. His six grandchildren are Steven Barbee, Paige Flick, Brandy Barbee, Michael Perry, Christopher McCormick, and Scott Perry--and his two great-grandchildren are Tessa and Jacob Weir. My condolences go to Doug's fine family. He will be missed, but his memory will live on in his beloved community of San Ysidro.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for two bills to provide financial relief to our Nation's senior citizens. Both men and women will receive assistance with this legislation, but because older women are often with less financial resources, they will particularly benefit. My first bill, H.R. 1922, the Fair Taxes for Seniors Act, allows the fact that the current capital gains tax exemption on the sale of a home is not working for seniors who live in areas with higher housing prices. The bill provides a one-time increase in the capital gains exemption for sales of homes for citizens who are 50 years and older. My second bill, the Social Security Survivors Fairness Act, provides Social Security widows benefits for women under the age of 60. Mr. Speaker, I have stories about various seniors in my District talking about the need for this exemption for the capital gains of the sale of their home and also for the lowering of the age for which they can become eligible for Social Security. I will include my full statement at this point. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for two bills to provide financial relief to our Nation's senior citizens. Both men and women will receive assistance with this legislation, but because older women are often with less financial resources, they will particularly benefit. My first bill is H.R. 1922, the Fair Taxes for Seniors Act. The current capital gains tax exemption on the sale of a home is not working for seniors who live in areas with higher housing prices. My bill provides a one-time increase in the capital gains tax exemption on the sale of a home for citizens who are 50 or older. Eleanor, a 78-year-old citizen, lives in Glen Ellyn, Illinois and bought her home 45 years ago with her husband, who has passed away. The combined Federal and State taxes on her home after the current capital gains exemption are $68,000. She needs this money from the sale of her house in order to move into a nursing home. Eleanor wants to stay in the Chicago area because her friends are there, but the price of nursing care there is high. Should a 78-year-old woman have to move from the city she has lived all her life because, as a widow, she is considered single and has to pay higher taxes? Marilyn is a single, professional woman who lives in Mission Hills, California--near my congressional district. She chose to become involved in her community and has stayed in the same house throughout her lifetime. Marilyn is now 60 years old and wants to sell her home and move to a smaller condo in the same area. Her combined Federal and State taxes are $169,940 after the current exemption. Should singles who remain in one house for many years be taxed for their stability-- and essentially for being single? Sally, a divorced, single mother in Seattle, Washington is 57 years old. She chose to stay in one home for 37 years so her children could stay in the same school system and she could live near her work and her church. One of her adult children has developed severe health problems and has to pay medical bills not covered by insurance. Sally is selling her home to pay some of the doctor's bills. Her combined Federal and State taxes are $64,000. This tax money is money that Sally should be able to use to pay off medical bills as well as to get ready for her own retirement. My bill would provide a one-time increase of $500,000 for a single person and $1 million for a couple in the amount excludable from the sale of a principal residence for taxpayers who have reached the age of 50. Let us help our citizens over age 50 who have lived in one home for many years. Let them keep the proceeds from the sale of their homes for retirement and health care costs. An added benefit is that family members and perhaps the government will be relieved of the burden of caring for these individuals as they grow older. My second bill is H.R. 1923, the Social Security Survivors Fairness Act, to provide Social Security widows' benefits for women under the age of 60. Maria is a 58-year-old widow who lives in San Ysidro, California in my congressional district. Throughout her lifetime, she worked in the home, raising her children and supporting her husband. Now her husband, who received Social Security benefits, has passed away. There currently is a provision for Maria to receive Social Security widows' benefits, but to qualify she must be 60 years old. Social Security is telling Maria that she must find a way to support herself for 2 years. It will be difficult for her to find a job at her age, when she has never worked outside of her home. Women in their late 50s who are dependent on their husband's Social Security are left with no means of support if their spouse dies. My bill would amend the Social Security Act to reduce from 60 to 55 the age at which an individual who is otherwise eligible may be paid widows' or widowers' insurance benefits. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1922 and H.R. 1923 to provide financial assistance to our country's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and collagues, I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 760, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban. This is a bill that immediately provokes strong feelings on both sides of the abortion issue. No one is in favor of abortion. I am not in favor of abortion, and in Congress, I am focused on making abortions less and less necessary. However, in a few situations each year, the procedure that this bill seeks to ban is necessary to protect the life or the health of the mother--or because of multiple abnormalities of the fetus, making viability virtually impossible. A woman, in this situation, has the constitutional right to an abortion, and there is a wealth of credible medical evidence that this procedure in some instances is much safer than other available procedures. H.R. 760 seeks to criminalize these safe, legal, and rare abortion procedures. A major problem with this bill is its name. The term, ``partial birth,'' is not a medical term. There is no medical definition of a ``partial birth'' abortion. It is a loaded, political term made up by the anti-choice movement to inflame the debate. It is not helpful to an enlightened discussion of this issue. In addition, as I have said, the bill is unconstitutional. In 2000, the Supreme Court found Nebraska's ``partial-birth'' abortion ban unconstitutional in Carhart v. Stenberg because it prevented a women's constitutional right to choose by banning safet abortion procedures and because it lacked the constitutionally-required exception to protect women's health. The Court noted that ``the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences''. These flaws are also present in H.R. 760. This bill definitely endangers women's health. Doctors will be forced to choose between providing care that is safe for their patients and going to jail. Despite repeated opportunities, anti-choice lawmakers refuse to include in their bills an exception to protect women's health. Finally, a majority of Americans agree that government has no place in private medical decisions that need to be made by a woman, her family, and her physician. Politicians should not be legislating medical care. H.R. 760 is an unprecedented intrustion into the doctor- patient relationship. This bill is opposed by a large number of respected medical and health organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association has withdrawn its support of these bans. As difficult as this vote may be, there is no way to vote for H.R. 760. A vote for this bill would be a vote for legislation that is unconstitutional, that allows government to intervene in personal and private decisions, and that provides no protections for women's health.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this rule and against the underlying motion. As the chairman said in his eloquent opening remarks, our flag is a grand and glorious symbol of our great Nation, of our fundamental values of freedom, liberty, justice and opportunity; and it is those values we must protect. We are not going to protect these values by tampering with the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. These have stood the test of time, and it is impossible to legislate patriotism. We protect these values through proper education of our children, nurturing their love and patriotism of our country and nurturing their respect for our flag and the men and women who keep our Nation strong. Yes, through the years our values have always included respect for our veterans, also. As a child, I heard from my veteran father of the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed services to keep our Nation free during World War II; and we have just witnessed the willingness of our current generation to put themselves in harm's way without hesitation when called upon by their President and their Nation to in Iraq. So why are we having this debate now? I would appreciate the attention of my good friend from California. Why are we having this debate now? This is a shell game, Mr. Speaker. They want us to look at this shell that has the flag and they are waving it furiously. They are waving it furiously, but they do not want us to watch this shell which are veterans benefits, which they are taking away. They vote first, out of here, a $25 billion cut in our Nation's veterans, and then it is down to $15 billion. Is this the way we honor our flag and honor our veterans? I find it deeply disturbing that many Members of the House of Representatives seem to be tenaciously determined, year after year, to pass this amendment at the very time, at the very time they vote for budgets that cut services and benefits to our Nation's veterans. This is hypocrisy, and the veterans who are here to lobby on this bill should understand the hypocrisy that is going on and the shell game that is happening. This hypocrisy will not escape these veterans. True respect for our veterans means that we do not abandon them when they return to our shores. Do my colleagues know, and I ask the gentleman from California, 14,000 veterans right now have waited longer than a year and a half for their action, many more for four or five years, for adjudication of their claims. There are veterans in San Diego, I would tell the gentleman, who have died while waiting for their appeal to be adjudicated. Two hundred thousand of our veterans right now are waiting longer than 6 months for their first health care appointment with the VA, their first health care appointment. This is the way we honor our veterans? Some of them will die before their first appointment. We have educational benefits under the GI bill that do not pay for college education. My father went to college on the GI bill. He bought a home on the GI bill. I am in Congress because of the GI bill, and what are we doing now? We are not even given enough for anyone to buy a home or go to college. This House has recommended to increase prescription drug copayments and impose a new enrollment of $250 for many veterans whom we are supposedly honoring today. Let me tell my colleagues about concurrent receipt, which allows disabled veterans who are retired from the military to receive both their disability compensation and their military retired pay. It has been on our agenda for years. The congressional leadership, the Republican leadership, while working diligently on passing this amendment, cannot find the courage, cannot muster up their skills at legislation to pass concurrent receipt. The very people who are arguing for this bill vote ``no'' when it comes to our veterans, vote ``no'' when it comes to our concurrent receipt. I ask the gentlepeople from the majority party, what will be the morale of our soldiers, soon to be veterans when they return home from Iraq, when they know they will have to wait for the promised services that the VA has made, when they know that they will have to pay more for less? What will be their morale when they see we are not keeping our promise to veterans? Are they going to wave the flag? I challenge my colleagues to put first our values that our great flag represents. We are patriots. We are Americans. Let us restore our contract with our Nation's veterans. That is the way to express our patriotism and to protect our Nation's flag.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to honor Mr. Abdel Salem on the occasion of his retirement as City Manager of El Centro, California in my Congressional District. Abdel was honored by his friends and colleagues at a Farewell Dinner on May 30, 2003. A native of Facous, Egypt, near the Suez Canal, Abdel was born into a farming family, along with two brothers and two sisters. He earned his Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from Alexandria University in Alexandria, Egypt in 1965. Influenced by an uncle who had earned his Doctorate Degree from the University of California at Berkeley, Abdel came to North America in the early 1970s--first to Toronto and then to New York City. He has furthered his education through postgraduate courses in Public Administration at San Diego State University. Choosing to move to sunny Imperial Valley of California, Abdel became Assistant Finance Director of El Centro in 1973 and was promoted to Finance Director four years later. Then came an appointment in 1980 to Acting City Manager and to City Manager in 1981. He has also served as Executive Director of the city's Redevelopment Agency and Executive Director of the Community Development Commission. He has been involved in many roles in the organizations and activities of Imperial Valley. He is past chairman of the Imperial Valley Emergency Communications Authority, past chairman of the Imperial Valley City/County Managers Association, and a founding board member of the Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation. He served as secretary/treasurer and president of the Optimist Club and is past chairman of the Oratorical Contest of Optimist International/ Southern California District. Abdel is also a member of the International City Managers Association, the California City Managers Executive Committee, the Community Redevelopment Agencies Association, and the League of Cities Fiscal Reform Committee, as well as the League of California Cities Committee on Diversity. I want to take this opportunity to thank Abdel Salem for these many fine contributions to our community. Upon his retirement, he leaves the City of El Centro a far better place. He is joined in celebrating his accomplishments by his wife, Samia, a teacher at Southwest High School, and his children, Sherif and Omneya, Salma, and Kareem. Sherif received his Bachelors' Degree in Biology in 1998 from USD and is currently employed at a biotech company in Irvine as a microbiologist. Omneya, his wife, is an architect, and they reside in San Diego. In 2001, Salma received her Masters' Degree in Human Development and Psychology from Harvard University. Kareem is Vice President of the Class of 2003 and an honor student at Southwest High School. My best wishes go to Abdel Salem and his family upon his completion of a fruitful and noteworthy term as El Centro's City Manager. He will be missed!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. When the Republicans are faced with a choice of helping millionaires with tax credits or giving low-income people some help they need with the same tax credits, they choose the millionaires every time. Once again, the President, and the President's bill, and the Republicans have robbed millions of low-income families of the child tax credit that has long been part of the bill. What some might not realize is that a large number of low-income military families, that is right, military families, will be affected by this change. These are men and women who have been serving overseas, enduring economic hardship in order to protect our country. But by this shameful act of the majority that we should address immediately, they will not be able to get the same tax benefit that a millionaire will get. It is offensive to say, it is offensive to say to the people of this Nation that we can afford to give huge tax credits to millionaires, but cannot come up with a few hundred dollars to help low-income military families who have sacrificed so much and need this money the most. I hope the sanity of this House will restore those tax credits.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Goode amendment is bad, and I will tell the Members that evaluation comes from those folks who represent the Texas and the California border. I represent all of the California-Mexico border. One of my crossings is the busiest border crossing in the entire world. In the various border crossings in my district, a quarter of a million people per day cross the border legally. So I think I have some experience with border crossings. And, yes, we have to get better control of our border, and we have reorganized our government and established a Department of Homeland Security to do just that, and we hope they will get the proper resources to do that. Yes, we have a lot to do, but it is not arming the border that is the answer. As has been pointed out, we have the best military in the world. We just proved it in Iraq. They are trained to kill. I will tell Members, the people who live in my district, 55 percent of whom are Americans of Mexican descent, do not like this idea. They are worried about the idea. I would say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the kind of training mission that the gentleman mentioned actually killed an American citizen of Mexican descent, an 18-year-old, ironically, who wanted to be a Marine. It was an accident. He could not tell the illegal from the legal. That is what we want to make sure does not happen on the border with Mexico. I want to remind my friends, Mexico is a friendly nation. I do not think they have made any attempts at invasion since the Alamo. So this proposal would make a very fragile relationship right now even worse, and that is not what we ought to be doing. If you want to help us control the border, all you folks from North Carolina and Virginia and Colorado and New Jersey, give us some technology. Ninety-five percent of the people who cross every day in my district cross frequently. With technology we can give them smart cards, they can cross the border, and we can focus our attention on the illegal crossings. This is the wrong way to go.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican majority's ineffective stimulus package. This plan will not accomplish its stated goal of stimulating the economy. In order for tax relief to be effective and fair in stimulating the economy quickly, it must be targeted at those who need it and those who will actually spend it. Giving money to those who will spend it is the most effective way to pump money into the economy. The Republicans refuse to acknowledge the importance of targeting relief appropriately. The vast majority of the benefits in the Republican plan will go to wealthy individuals. It ignores many groups that are in dire need and attempts to placate others by offering temporary benefits. The benefits for the rich are long term and this administration intends them to be permanent. Rather than calling this an economic stimulus, let's call it what it really is: the renewal of trickle-down economics. The Democratic alternative provides tax relief to those who need it and those who will spend the money that they receive. Families need a tax cut and the Democratic plan delivers with a permanent increase in the child tax credit, an immediate expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket, and elimination of the marriage penalty. This relief will go to low- and middle-income Americans who will put it back into the American economy immediately. Those who lost their job in the economic slowdown need assistance and the Democratic package helps them with an extension of their unemployment benefits. This money will be spent right away to pay bills and provide for the needs of their families. The States are in need of economic assistance and the Democratic package gives them the direct aid that they need to the tune of $44 billion over 10 years. This is money that will be immediately invested in education, healthcare, and homeland security so that States won't have to lay-off any more workers and can begin to hire some back. Small businesses need a stimulus and the Democratic package provides them with tax incentives that encourage investment, foster expansion, and reward those who hire workers who have been unemployed for at least 6 months. I believe we should go even further in targeting relief to those who need it. I have proposed a plan that provides an exemption from approximately the first $20,000 of payroll tax, FICA, for all taxpayers and businesses. This will put about $1,300 into the pockets of those who will spend it to stimulate the economy and be a big boon to small business. Ask any low- and middle-income family how they would spend a couple of thousand dollars and they will give you a list of things they need right now. To keep the Social Security Fund whole, the bill eliminates the current $87,000 cap on FICA contributions--meaning that those earning more than $107,000 a year would pay their fair share. These alternative proposals would be fast-acting and effective. Equally important, they would be fully paid for. They don't add one dime to our record deficits. The contrast could not be clearer--the President only seems to trust the richest Americans to receive more of their money back, while my proposal, and the Democratic plan, would provide a significant benefit to low- and middle-income families who would actually spend the money to stimulate the economy--and be an equally significant benefit to small business.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to urge support for two bills that I have just introduced to provide financial relief to our Nation's senior citizens. Both men and women will receive assistance with this legislation, but because older women are often with less financial resources, they will particularly benefit. My first bill is H.R. 1922, the Fair Taxes for Seniors Act. This bill would provide a one-time increase in the capital gains tax exemption on the sale of a home for citizens who are 50 or older. Passing this bill would give many seniors the additional money they need for nursing home care, medical costs, and other retirement expenses. The current capital gains tax exemption works well for younger people who often move from job to job, selling their homes. The current exemption works well for people who live in areas where housing prices are below average. But it is not working for individuals who have lived in one home for 20 to 50 years and have a capital gain that is much larger than the present exemption. In other words, it is not working for seniors who live in areas with higher housing prices. A senior citizen named Eleanor lives in Glen Ellyn, IL and bought her home with her husband 45 years ago. The value of her home at the time of her husband's death was $32,000. Eleanor is now 78 years old and needs to move into a nursing care facility. Her house is worth $579,000, and the combined Federal and State taxes after the current capital gains exemption are $68,000. Her only income is from Social Security and a small pension, and she needs the money from the sale of her house in order to move into the nursing home. Eleanor would like to stay in the Chicago area because her friends are there, but the price of nursing care is high there as well. Should a 78-year-old woman have to move away from the city where she has lived all her life because, as a widow, she is considered single and has to pay higher taxes? The tax of $68,000 is money she should be able to use for medicine, living expenses, and her nursing home. Marilyn is a single, professional woman who lives in Mission Hills, CA--near my Congressional District. She purchased her home over 30 years ago for $65,000. She chose to become involved in her community and has stayed in the same house throughout her lifetime. Marilyn is now 60 years old and would like to sell her home and move to a smaller condo in the same area. The selling price of her home is now $895,000, and her combined Federal and State taxes are $169,940 after the current exemption. Should singles who remain in one house for many years be taxed for their stability and their long-term commitment to their community--and essentially for being single? A one-time exemption on capital gains would allow Marilyn to downsize her life for her retirement years in a way that is financially sensible. Sally, a divorced, single mother in Seattle, WA is 57 years old. She chose to stay in one home for 37 years so her children could stay in the same school system, and so she could live near her work and her church. One of her adult children has developed severe health problems and has had to pay medical bills not covered by insurance. Sally needs to help with these medical expenses and has decided to sell her home to pay some of the doctor's bills. Her home that she purchased for $55,000 is now worth $629,000, and the combined Federal and State taxes are $64,000. This tax money is money that Sally should be able to use to pay off medical bills as well as to get ready for her own retirement. My bill would provide a one-time increase of $500,000 for a single person and $1 million for a couple in the amount excludable from the sale of a principal residence for taxpayers who have reached the age of 50. Let us help our citizens over age 50 who have lived in one home for many years. Let them keep the proceeds from the sale of their homes for retirement and health care costs. An added benefit is that family members and perhaps the government will be relieved of the burden of caring for these individuals as they grow older. My second bill is H.R. 1923, the Social Security Survivors Fairness Act, legislation to provide Social Security widows' benefits for women under the age of 60. Maria is a 58-year-old widow who lives in San Ysidro, CA in my Congressional District. Throughout her lifetime, she worked in the home, raising her children and supporting her husband. Now her husband, who received Social Security benefits, has passed away. There currently is a provision for Maria to receive Social Security widows' benefits, but to qualify she must be 60 years old. Social Security is telling Maria that she must find a way to support herself for 2 years before they are going to help with widows' benefits. It will be very difficult for her to find a job at her age, when she has never worked outside of her home. Women in their late 50s who are dependent on their husband's Social Security are left with no means of support if their spouse dies. My bill would amend the Social Security Act to reduce from 60 to 55 the age at which an individual who is otherwise eligible may be paid widows' or widowers' insurance benefits. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1922 and H.R. 1923 to provide financial assistance to our country's most vulnerable citizens.