Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise to call the attention of the House to three bills that I have introduced to address concerns of our nation's disabled veterans. Each of the bills was introduced in response to requests from veterans all across the nation. H.R. 1919 will authorize transportation on military aircraft on a space-available basis for veterans with a service-connected disability rated at 50% or more. Currently, members and retirees of the uniformed services and the reserves may travel free on Department of Defense (DoD) aircraft when space is available. This benefit is allowed when it does not interfere with military missions and is a recognition of military careers filled with rigorous duty. But present policies do not extend this benefit to our disabled veterans. What more rigorous duty can be imagined than to become disabled in the service of our country? Why has the DoD chosen not to recognize the brave men and women who sacrificed their health and well- being while serving in uniform? This DoD policy is wrong, and H.R. 1919 would correct it. This bill would cost the federal government nothing, and adding disabled veterans would not interfere with benefits for active-duty personnel. Current military is always given priority, and H.R. 1919 would do nothing to change that. What my bill would do is to allow seats that would otherwise go unused to be occupied by men and women who have been disabled in their service to their nation. Two other bills, H.R. 1917 and H.R. 1918, would also allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to use military facilities. The DoD provides Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs to bring some of the benefits of civilian life to military communities. These programs are the cornerstone of community quality of life, providing for fitness, recreation, libraries, sports and athletic programs. DoD considers MWR programs as critical to mission readiness and productivity--these programs contribute to physical fitness and recruitment and retention of personnel. In addition, civilian employees and their families are allowed access as a perk of their employee benefit package. Other groups, such as the Scouts of America, can also utilize the lands by getting special permission. In contrast, most of the over 2 million disabled veterans (rated 0% to 90% disabled) are currently deemed not disabled enough to be considered a patron of MWR. My bill, H.R. 1917, would fix that! A third bill, H.R. 1918, would extend commissary and exchange store privileges to service-disabled veterans with a rating of 30% or more and their families. Congress must do all we reasonably can for the men and women in uniform who have become disabled in service to our nation. Our disabled veterans are important members of a greater military family, and they should be treated as such with every available opportunity. I believe that changing these policies--use of military recreational lands, transportation on military aircraft, and commissary privileges- are the right steps to take for our disabled veterans! They have sacrificed their health and well-being for their country, and I believe that they have earned the right to these privileges. Please join with me by co-sponsoring these three bills and working for their passage.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern for the men and women of our armed services who will be returning and are returning from Iraq. My colleagues are aware that our troops were funded during the period of fighting last month at the rate of about $1 billion, $1 billion, every 2 or 3 days. Now, we did not want our troops to go without having everything that they needed for success, but if we have the money to send our troops to war, we must, Mr. Speaker, have the money for them when they return. To abandon them upon their return shows disrespect for those who have willingly risked all when their Nation called them to serve. In the next few months, Congress will be voting on the veterans budget. The House Republican budget that came through this House was outrageous. It cut veterans benefits by $25 billion over the next 10 years, and they took that vote right after a resolution expressing support for our troops. Now, the final budget resolution we passed corrected some of the most glaring problems in that budget, but it is still $1 billion less for the health care for our veterans in the coming year. One billion dollars. That would fund approximately 5,000 doctors, 10,000 nurses, or three million additional outpatient visits. Over the next 10 years, the budget falls far short of what will be needed to keep up with inflation and with the growing number of veterans who were using the veterans health care system. We must fight during the appropriation process for a budget that is worthy of our returning veterans. We cannot ignore their rights and their needs. Veterans health care is one of the most important issues that we fund. We hope and pray that we do not have veterans from the current conflict who become ill with Gulf War illness, but we must prepare for that possibility. And we must not forget the warriors of the first Gulf War who are sick, tens of thousands of them, and are still waiting to learn the cause and the cure for their illnesses. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we need to change the whole process of funding our veterans health care. Right now, each year in Congress, as we are doing this year, we have to fight for a health care budget. In the last session, there was legislation to change VA health care funding so that the amount of funding would automatically, automatically rise each year to accommodate inflation and new enrollees, that is, for example, to accommodate the returning veterans from Iraq. I will again, and I urge all my colleagues, to cosponsor this bill when it is reintroduced this session. And we must work hard for its passage. Right now, Mr. Speaker, 200,000 veterans are waiting more than 6 months for their first health care appointment. In fact, veterans will die while waiting for that first appointment. We must resolve to change this immoral situation. When our active-duty soldiers from the war in Iraq leave service, many are qualified for educational benefits under the Montgomery GI bill. This is an earned benefit that allows them to reenter civilian life as educated and productive members. But the current GI bill benefits are woefully inadequate to do the job. Back in 1944, this bill paid for the full cost of college tuition. But now it barely pays for two-thirds of the average cost of attending a 4-year public college. We must work to provide funding for the full cost of tuition fees, books, and supplies for those who do serve 4 years of active duty in the military service. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, because there are so many other areas that need more funding than is currently budgeted. We will soon be commemorating Memorial Day. We will be hearing words of support for our veterans from all Members of Congress as they speak to Memorial Day crowds. But words can be cheap. What is important is how we vote. We have the money. We have the resources. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of will. Let us make our veterans, who are returning from war, proud of us. There is one final thing I want to say. A substantive way we can assist our veterans is to guarantee them jobs with companies that are awarded government contracts to rebuild Iraq, and I have introduced a bill to do just that. It is called the Let U.S. Veterans Rebuild Iraq Act, which will treat our veterans with the respect they deserve and provide a tangible way to better their lives. They fought for freedom in Iraq, who better to get involved in securing the future for Iraq?

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this Energy bill. Rather than emphasizing conservation and renewable energy sources, this bill focuses on destroying our natural resources and using fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. Supporters of this bill claim it is a consumer friendly bill that increases Americans' access to cheaper energy. Admittedly, there are a few positive aspects of the bill. For example, there are incentives to use cellulosic biomass ethanol. This not only makes gasoline cleaner, but it also creates jobs and other uses for crops such as sugar cane. There are also a few incentives to use renewable fuels such as wind and solar energy. Unfortunately, the rest of the provisions in this bill show its true colors. It provides monetary incentives for big oil and gas companies that are nearly twice as much as those that are available for conservation and the use of alternative fuels. These measures do not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Further, by giving big companies incentives to burn fossil fuels it puts our air quality at risk--our tax dollars are funding the polluting of our air. It doesn't stop with our air. It also puts our water at risk by weakening protections of rivers, coastal areas, and drinking water. As if that wasn't enough, this bill opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to gas and oil drilling, destroying one of our last great natural resources. The final blow is that it weakens consumer protections against companies like Enron from manipulating the energy market. As a Congressman from California, where we suffered through blackouts and sky-high electricity bills because of electricity market abuse, this is unacceptable. This bill rips the blanket of protection off consumers, leaving them with no tools to fend off corporate abuses. This is not the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; this is not the best use of technology and this is not the best way to protect our health and environment. That is why I cannot support this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Dr. Rolf Schulze upon the occasion of his retirement as a professor at San Diego State University (SDSU), the institution of learning at which I also taught for 20 years. Rolf has outdone me, though, with a teaching career of 34 years! I first met Rolf in the early 1970s, when we were both new to SDSU. I discovered a man of conviction, dedicated both to his academic endeavors and to his belief in the importance of the labor movement. Rolf began as a trade union member at 15 years of age. He came to the United States from Germany at age 17 with few dollars in his pocket but very large dreams. After serving in the military, he obtained his PhD at Michigan State University, followed by his appointment to teach at SDSU. Rolf became president of the United Professors of California in 1970 and later, when it became the California Faculty Association, he served several more terms as president, as well as serving as a member of the SDSU Senate. He now is a member of the Executive Board of the San Diego/Imperial Counties Labor Council. Rolf exhibited his special talents in working for solidarity within his own union, as well as with other unions--promoting quality education, fair working conditions, compensation and benefits. He has been a leader in helping to institute many democratic cost reforms within the California academic system. As a Sociology professor, Rolf demonstrated his love of teaching, research, and writing. His students consider him to be an inspiration to them, coming back to acknowledge his influence years after their graduation. It is well known that there is ``standing room only'' on the first day of his classes. He challenges his students to think for themselves, to question, and not to settle for the status quo but always to look for better ways to solve problems and to guard our liberties. Rolf's way of solving problems at all levels is to communicate openly and to encourage the building of consensus. he has been a leader in bringing faculty, unions, and administration together for the betterment of all, not by grandstanding--which is not his way--but through his own brand of quiet, patient listening, showing respect for all points of view. Upon his retirement, he leaves the university a far better place. He is joined in celebrating his accomplishments by his wife Jane Carney Schulze, his sons Mark and Eric, and his daughters-in-law Patty Mooney and Tina Thomas. My best wishes go to my colleague and my good friend, Rolf Schulze.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I recently introduced a resolution supporting humanitarian assistance from the United States to Iraq. H. Con. Res. 127 reinforces the ideal that we should send American-grown and made products to Iraq--and on American ships! The United States obviously has a deep and enduring interest in the welfare of the citizens of Iraq who have been living under the regime of Saddam Hussein for decades. Iraq is currently suffering a humanitarian crisis that could worsen during Operation Iraqi Freedom. An estimated 4.5 million to 10 million people in Iraq, about 40 percent of the population, will require food assistance within a few weeks. Unfortunately, most of the warehouses in Iraq that store food under the ``Oil-for-Food'' program are empty. There are few food reserves in Iraq. If action is not taken to address this shortfall, people will die of starvation. Now that Operation Iraqi Freedom has begun, it is our duty to recognize the need for, and prepare for, the delivery of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the people of Iraq. It is our obligation to provide American-grown commodities, such as wheat, to Iraq! Food security will be significant in improving the quality of life the people of Iraq. Providing United States agricultural commodities to Iraq will help alleviate the humanitarian crisis there, as well as help strengthen our Nation's economy. Our Nation's farmers would certainly be proud to supply humanitarian assistance to a country in great need. Further, our United States maritime industry would be honored to ship supplies to Iraq in order to help with this critical effort. In addition, the Department of Defense recently created the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. This office is a coordinated effort between government agencies in order to plan and implement assistance programs in a post-war Iraq. The resolution I have introduced commends the Department of Defense for recognizing the need for, and taking an inter-agency approach to, the delivery of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we can, and must, help to improve the living conditions of the civilian population of Iraq! The fact that we can do this with American products makes this humanitarian effort all the more beneficial, significant, and crucial!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to speak about a bill to restore equity to the survivors of our nation's veterans, the Military Survivors' Equity Act (H.R. 1592). It is hard to believe that we continue to condone a system that penalizes the aging survivors, mostly widows, of the veterans of our country, but that is exactly what the Military Survivors' Benefit Plan does! When a member of the military retires, he or she may join the Survivors' Benefits Plan, known as the SBP. After paying a premium for many, many years, the retiree expects that his or her spouse will receive 55 percent of the retired military pay if the veteran dies. But this is not the case! As I said, most of the survivors who receive SBP benefits are military widows. You may not realize that when these widows who are receiving SBP benefits turn 62, a Social Security offset causes their benefits to be reduced from 55 percent to 35 percent of their husband's military retired pay. This occurs even when the Social Security comes from the wife's employment! What does this reduction mean to our nation's military widows? I have received many, many letters on this topic. Let me read from two: My husband, who served in the Army for 20 years, was on Social Security disability because of heart problems and could no longer work. He died when I was 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 that my SBP was reduced from $476 to $302. What a shock! This was my grocery money that they took away from me. And a second-- While my husband was alive, we worked out a budget for me in case he died. I felt secure in the knowledge that he had provided for me by joining the Survivors Benefits Plan. I could not believe it when I learned that I was not going to get the amount we were promised. I cannot believe that our government would do this to the widow of a veteran. It is past time to change this misleading and unfair law. We must provide equity to the surviving spouses of our military retirees. My bill would fix this problem by eliminating the callous and absurd reduction in benefits and give what is expected and what is deserved: 55 percent of the military retired pay. To put it simply, no offset. A simple solution to a difficult problem, as equitable solution to a mean-spirited practice. Colleagues, please join me in co-sponsoring H.R. 1592, the Military Survivors' Equity Act. Let us do this for our veterans and for their surviving spouses. Let us stop the pain and anguish that we are causing them.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I speak this evening from the Republican side of the aisle in the hope that my words, and the words of all my colleagues here tonight, will nestle in the empty seats that are here this evening and, by osmosis, maybe change the hearts and the minds of those who, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) just said, just last week in one minute voted to support the troops in Iraq, and in the very next vote voting to cut veterans benefits by the $28 billion he mentioned. What sheer hypocrisy, my colleague said; and I think the American people must understand this. We say they have cut this $28 billion over 10 years. That means $2 billion or $3 billion every year from the budget from what it should have been. Now, $2 billion or $3 billion around here sounds like a little bit of money, but $2 billion or $3 billion out in the countryside sounds like some unimaginable figure. And it really is. What could we do with that $2 billion or $3 billion every year for our veterans? What should we do with that which is going to be cut by the Republican budget? Here is what we could do with that. Right now there are a quarter million veterans waiting for their first appointment, their first appointment with the VA. They have been waiting for over 6 months. Some of these veterans will die before they have their first appointment the way our system works right now. There are almost a half million veterans who have made claims for disability to the Veterans Administration that are pending. They may be pending for 2, 3, 4, some even 5 years; 125,000 appeals are pending for years. Why is that the case? Because the VA does not have enough resources to solve those cases within the 30, 60, or 90 days, the way they should be solved. Why is a veteran kept waiting for years? There are veterans in my district who have died while waiting for their appeals to be adjudicated, as we said. That is what the $2 billion will buy. It will get the veterans the service they need, get them the disability justice that they deserve. That is what the $2 billion will buy. It will buy full funding of the Montgomery GI bill. For many young people that bill is the only entrance into the economy of today, to get an education. We have the Montgomery GI bill to do it, except we do not fund it. We fund it at a few hundred bucks a month. We need to have the full funding of that so our veterans can get funding. I could go on with what this $2 billion will buy, and we will be doing that for the next few weeks. We will have colloquies on this. But I will just end by saying that our veterans are being mistreated by this Nation. The folks in Iraq will come home as veterans. What do my colleagues think their morale will be when they know they have to wait years before they can ever get their claim adjudicated? It is time for veterans around the Nation to watch what we do, not what we say. I believe they should be here when the appropriations process occurs. I have suggested they should surround the Capitol while we do that bill until we do the right thing. They should set up tents, bivouacs. Be here so their representatives do the right thing. Let us support our veterans the way we should.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank them all for being here tonight to stand up for our Nation's veterans. Our troops in Iraq are being funded at the rate of about $1 billion every 2\1/2\ or 3 days, $1 billion every 2\1/2\ or 3 days. We want our troops to have the best. We want our troops to have everything they need for success in Iraq. But if we have the money to send our troops to war, we must have the money for them when they come back from war, and that is all we are saying here tonight. What we are saying is for 2\1/2\ or 3 days of that war in Iraq, we can fund everything that our veterans need this coming year. That is the amount of money that has been subtracted by the Republicans in their budget, $25 billion over the next decade. We have the money. It is a question of the will. We have the resources. It is a question of our priorities. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to call the names and take the prisoners of those who are hurting our veterans. You hear on Memorial Day and on Veterans Day the words of support, but watch what they do when they come and vote. Watch what they do when they vote on the budget. Watch what they do when they vote on the appropriations. Watch what they do when they take your future away from you. Watch the procedural votes. Watch us, ladies and gentlemen. Because if you just take the words, everybody here supports you, but the money ain't there to make it happen. Let me say a couple of things that the Republican budget takes away if it goes through. As we heard earlier, a co-payment for a month's worth of prescription drugs, the drugs that you need to survive, is going to double, more than double, from $7 to $15. We are going to charge enrollment fees to veterans who are in ``a higher priority'' but who are veterans and who deserve the treatment, and we can give it to them. We are going to cut 5,000 nursing home beds so only those veterans with the worst kind of disability will be able to be cared for. We will abandon our goal of eliminating homelessness amongst our veterans. Every evening, Madam Speaker, 250,000 of our Nation's veterans are on the streets. Can the Members imagine that as a way to pay back what they have given to our country? They are homeless, and we do not seem to have the resources to change it. We give the program $20 million a year, $20 million a year. That is nothing in the context of our budget. Disabled veterans, disabled veterans will be cut from care if this budget goes through. The Montgomery GI bill, which helps our education of our veterans, will not be funded. VA home loans will not be funded. Markers and flags for deceased veterans will not be funded. This is hypocrisy, ladies and gentlemen, hypocrisy that comes from saying we are for the veterans and not providing the money. Madam Speaker and the gentlewoman from California, right now there are 200,000 veterans who have waited more than 6 months for their first appointment. Veterans will die while they are waiting for that first appointment, and yet we say we cannot do anything. Let us resolve to change this. I ask all the veterans, when we consider the appropriations, come to Washington, surround the Capitol, camp out, bivouac, and do not leave this place until we pass a budget that is worthy of you.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concern about the budget resolution before use today. As a Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am especially concerned about the amount of funding included in the budget resolution for our Nation's veterans. This Republican budget is woefully short of what is needed, and I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget alternative. Our alternative provides $32 billion more than the Republican budget over the next 10 years for veterans. This means providing $17 billion more for veterans' health care and rejecting the Republican cut of $15 billion for mandatory veterans' programs, programs like service- connected disability compensation, pensions, survivors' benefits, vocational rehabilitation, educational and burial benefits. I cannot imagine even thinking about cuts to compensation for our disabled veterans! The Democratic budget is supported by the authors of the Independent Budget, a budget created by veterans' service organizations who are on the front lines and in a position to know exactly what is needed. They call the Democratic alternative ``a solid step forward in meeting the very real needs of veterans''. This morning I attended the joint Senate and House VA Committee hearing, where we heard views on the budget from the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Military Officers Association of American, and AMVETS. I must report that for much of the hearing, there were only two Members present to receive the veterans testimony. On the day following the beginning of the war with Iraq, it is hard to believe that most of the Members of the VA Committee were too busy to attend this hearing about funding for our veterans' programs. Perhaps our Republican colleagues were reworking their original budget resolution, working to respond to the outcries from veterans and the public about their original budget resolution. But the final result before us today is still woefully inadequate. Mr. Chairman, as we send our young men and women to war in Iraq, certain to result in disability for some young Americans, we unfortunately are simultaneously sending the message that Congress is not concerned about their future as veterans! This is unconscionable. Why does the Republican budget proposal fail to fund veterans programs at the level recommended by the Independent Budget? I am sad that it is largely because Congress is poised to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Who deserves to receive the benefits of the national treasury-- America's disabled veterans or America's millionaires? I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to pay tribute to Jack H. Buckles on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Jack was born in Watagua, Tennessee on March 12, 1923. He was raised in a strong Democrat family of eight sons and two daughters. Following the outbreak of World War II, Jack enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He served aboard LCT 666, making numerous landings of soldiers and equipment on Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944. After being honorably discharged at the end of the war, Jack returned to his home in Tennessee, where he became the first member of his family to attend college. On August 18, 1947, he married Billie Roberta Leonard. Shortly after his marriage, Jack became a journeyman steamfitter, working on numerous Tennessee Valley Authority construction projects. In 1959, Jack moved his family to Frederick, Maryland. Jack joined the Steamfitters Union 602 in Washington D.C., where he served for more than 35 years with professionalism and commitment. Recognized for his exceptional skill in his craft, Jack was identified as one of the pool of select union members assigned to duties at the White House and other highly sensitive federal job sites. He supported the expansion of the medical and pension plans for the rank and file which today is recognized as one of the model union programs in the building trades in the District of Columbia. A long time resident of Frederick, Maryland, Jack has proven himself to be a pillar of his community, a strong leader in his church and active in numerous community and service organizations. A life long Democrat, Jack has devoted himself to working for the advancement of the Democrat Party and Democrat candidates at the local and state level. He has been a member of the Christian Church of Frederick for more than 30 years, where he was selected by the congregation to serve as a Church Deacon. Jack considers his family as his greatest achievement. A loving husband of over 55 years to Billie R. Buckles, they have one son, a daughter, four grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize Jack H. Buckles before this body of Congress and this nation today. His contributions to his community, his church, and his family have been immeasurably beneficial in the lives of many.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for his leadership on something that is so important to America, and that is, the Museum and Library Services Act. As my colleague has pointed out, this bill authorizes $245 million in Federal assistance for museums and libraries in the coming fiscal year and additional funds all the way through the end of this decade. A civilized society, Mr. Speaker, must include cultural enrichment, and it is one of the responsibilities of our government to support that aspect of our civilization. We get what we pay for. Thanks to our museums and libraries, our citizens become well-rounded individuals, and our children are encouraged to become the best that they can be. Let me highlight for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, a few of the success stories that come out from the Library Services and Technology Act, which is a part of the Museum and Library Services Act, in my home State of California. The Infopeople project provides training and computers for local libraries, assuring public access to the Internet in 530 of our State's 765 public libraries. The University of California in San Diego is assisting over 100 libraries and cultural institutions to recover from natural and man- made disasters. The County of Los Angeles Public Library is training college students to assist with the library's Summer Reading Program for Children, providing work experience for students while helping open the door to reading for over 30,000 of our children. The Family Literacy Program provides programs and books for infants and children. The Oceanside Public Library in San Diego County provides health information from a mobile vehicle funded through this Act. From my own congressional district, in the city of National City, one of the poorest cities in California, but blessed with a great city librarian, Anne Campbell, this city has funded a large community computer center in the National City Public Library. Over 50,000 residents each year have access to electronic information, software programs, Internet and training. Residents are working on job resumes, e-mailing a loved one aboard a Navy ship, running a business, preparing reports for school and 1,000 other uses that we know that the Internet can provide. Currently, a grant from this Act provides Web page design training for high school students, with real life experiences designing Web sites for local businesses and nonprofit organizations. From the first class, already two students have been hired permanently to continue to update these Web sites. So the digital divide of which we hear a lot has been narrowed in National City because of the LSTA. We can go on for a long time about the stories. These are just a few, but they would not be possible without our investment in our Nation's libraries. I urge support of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 963, legislation to rename the Southeastern Post Office, in San Diego, California, the ``Cesar E. Chavez Post Office.'' In San Diego, as well as across the Nation, the name Cesar Chavez symbolizes dignity, admiration, and devotion to equality and human rights. This man dedicated his life to ameliorating human rights in our country. In the 1950s and 60s, when minorities were given little or no respect or rights, Cesar Chavez cleared the path for equality. In the early 1950s, after fighting in World War II, Chavez began his involvement in battling racial and economic discrimination against Chicanos. As his attention and personal interest focused on the poor working conditions of farm workers, he realized that his dream was to start an organization to aid these workers. Having been a farm worker himself, he was far too familiar with the inhumane working conditions farm workers were forced to endure. In 1962, he founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA), and in 1965, the NFWA joined an AFL-CIO sponsored union boycott against major table and wine grape growers. Through this five year long, successful boycott that rallied millions of supporters, the NFWA merged with the AFL-CIO union and formed the United Farm Workers (UFW).2 From the beginning, the UFW followed the principals of nonviolence practiced by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He organized peaceful demonstrations to bring attention to the farm worker's conditions. His slogan, Si se puede!, Yes, we can!, became known worldwide. National attention to the farm workers came in 1968 when Senator Robert Kennedy visited Cesar Chavez in California after Chavez led a 25 day fast. Kennedy was right when he called Cesar ``one of the heroic figures of our time.'' Cesar continued to organize boycotts and strikes around the world against table grape growers in California. His efforts paid off when, in 1975, growers supported then California Governor Jerry Brown's collective bargaining law for farm workers, the 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Cesar Chavez is remembered today for his continual efforts and dedication to justice and equality. As Cesar said, ``There are many reasons why a man does what he does. To be himself he must be able to give it all. If a leader cannot give it all, he cannot expect his people to give anything.'' The people of San Diego thank Cesar Chavez for always giving his all. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that recognizes such an honorable man by naming a San Diego Post Office in his honor.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, just quickly, the fact that this legislation does not say anything about the merged boards of BECC and NADBank, you could have said something about it. Just because you did not, do not criticize the fact that this is a backwards step. If you want to move forward, then change that, too. And we need to have the support of the Chair and those who are supporting this bill for some money for the community adjustment investment fund. It has been zeroed out by the administration. So, yes, there are some reforms here. The question is how much money are we going to give it and how much community input are we going to allow. A report to Congress on a yearly basis does not allow the community input that this board needs.

Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do represent the entire California-Mexico border, so I am a border Congressman; and I must say, we have some difficulties with the proposed legislation. The gentlewoman from Ohio, and I am sorry that it had to take someone from the hinterlands to explain to us that this whole issue of NAFTA and NADBank need to be discussed by this body in a far more important way than a bill on suspension that gives us 10 minutes to debate. The gentlewoman is entirely correct. And just because it is only the NADBank that falls within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee is no reason to limit this House from a fuller discussion. The Banking Committee can in fact go in with other committees and have that discussion. The gentlewoman was absolutely right: jobs have been lost, millions, because of NAFTA. I live in San Diego, California, a community impacted by NAFTA. Did the community adjustment investment fund or NADBank do anything for our community? No. Is it going to do anything with the proposed reforms? I do not know. But I am very wary. When NAFTA was passed, there was no infrastructure put in place to realize some of its benefits. For example, in San Diego, California, 3,000 trucks a day now cross the border from Mexico to the United States. There is no highway that takes those 3,000 trucks from the border crossing to the interstate highway system. I have been trying to get it built for the last 10 years. We have a city street that takes those trucks; it is one of the most dangerous roads in America. Has NADBank helped that? No. The environment which NADBank was limited to before these reforms, the maquiladoras which NAFTA brought to the border, hundreds of them, employing thousands of Mexican workers, do not have to abide by any of the environmental rules that we establish. So they end up dumping their toxic materials in the gullies and ravines in Mexico. You know where that ends up? I got 50 million gallons, now millions of gallons in the last few years of raw sewage floating through my district in the Tijuana River to the Pacific Ocean. In Imperial County to the east of San Diego, there are millions of gallons of raw sewage flowing through the New River, then the Alamo River, to the Salton Sea. Did NADBank take care of anything there? Nothing. Those same maquiladoras brought Mexican workers to the border. What did it pay them? No increase in wages. In fact, wages fell. And do you know what happened when the folks who came to the Maquilas who thought they were going to get high wages and did not? What happened? Illegal immigration to America. Did NADBank do anything to help us with that? Nothing. Two power plants have just opened up in Mexicali, Mexico, to service the needs of California, power needs. Did they have to follow the environmental rules of our community? No. Can the border patrol stop air pollution? No. Did NADBank help us solve any of that? No. I agree that the folks who have worked on this, this is a step forward. I do not have any doubts about that. The lower-than-market interest rates which prevented really any loans from being made is absolutely necessary. The expansion of the definition of what projects would be accepted is obviously a very important step forward. But there is a backwards step that you ought to have maybe said something about in your legislation. As I understand it, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, the board of that and the board of NADBank are being merged. BECC was one of the few places where you had any community input, and now we are not going to have any. San Diego and Tijuana had virtually no input. Mexicali and Calexico in Imperial County had no input. El Paso, no input. Brownsville, no input. Where is the community input for the reform bank that you are putting in? We at the border communities, and I will tell you even more the inland communities, if I may say so, need to have input into what is going on with the NADBank. It is not serving our communities. I do not see any step forward that will change that. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Treasury when I asked him a few years ago, and this was in a previous administration, how was NADBank doing, he had no idea. It has been put in a corner somewhere because of an attempt to get a few votes for NAFTA. It was set up to do nothing, and it fulfilled those expectations. I do not see any reforms really that will make NADBank work for America and American workers. I thank the gentlewoman for allowing us to have this debate.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 770, ``Putting the Pedal to the Metal: Accelerating the Energy Independence of America'' Act, legislation creating a broad tax credit for the production of alternative fuel vehicles. Transportation accounts for about two-thirds of the oil consumption in the United States, and we are 97 percent dependent on oil for our transportation needs. If our nation is going to have a strategy for energy security, that strategy must begin with transportation fuels. As we all learned during the California energy crisis, any strategy for energy security has to be based in alternative sources of production, to ensure that we have we are never again held captive by one company or industry. When enacted, this legislation will offer a tax credit for every dollar invested by companies towards the production of alternative fuel vehicles. The credit will allow companies to take a credit equal to the percent of investment in the production of alternative fuel vehicles, so if a company spends 40% of their time and expense on producing alternative fuel vehicles, they would receive a 40% credit against its tax burden. Hopefully, this will spur small companies and large companies alike, to move towards the production of alternative fuel vehicles. This landmark legislation will help break the old cycle of automobile manufacturers failing to sufficiently invest in alternative fuel vehicle technology, because it was not profitable enough. Many companies, large and small, are already in the business of producing alternative fuel vehicles, such as L3 Research, Inc. in San Diego. L3 Research Inc. has a prototype, the L3 ``Enigma''--a hybrid- electric sports car. This is the world's first hybrid-electric sports car, faster than a Corvette, and it recharges from a common wall outlet. This is the kind of innovative, next-generation, vehicle production that will benefit from this legislation. During his State of the Union address, President Bush rolled out an initiative to fund the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. While I support this worthy goal, most experts estimate that fuel cell powered vehicles are a generation away. Mr. Speaker, we don't need to wait many years to support alternative fuel vehicles--it's time to put the pedal to the metal and accelerate the energy independence of America. Pass H.R. 770.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to ask for the support of my colleagues for H.R. 664, ``The Health Care for Filipino World War II Veterans Act.'' Almost 60 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted the soldiers of the Philippines into service in World War II, because the Philippine was a territory of the United States at that time. Fighting side-by-side with soldiers from the United States mainland, the Filipino soldiers were instrumental in the successful outcome of the war. However, shortly after the war's end in 1946, Congress passed the Rescissions Act which took away promised benefits from many of the Filipino veterans and declared that their service was deemed not to be service in the military forces of the United States. We owe not only a debt of gratitude to these brave veterans, but we owe them recognition as veterans of the United States military. And we owe them the benefits they were promised! Now in their 70s and 80s, they are in desperate need of health care, and approximately five veterans are dying each day. I have introduced, H.R. 664, with a number of original co-sponsors from both parties, including Congressmembers Simmons, Evans, Cunningham, Pelosi, Issa, Rohrabacher, Abercrombie, Millender-McDonald, Tiahrt, Lofgren, and Scott. This bill would provide access to VA medical facilities for the Filipino veterans who are now living in the United States and would restore the designation of veteran to these brave men. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi, testified in a June 13, 2002 hearing before the VA Health Subcommittee in support of H.R. 4904, the version of this bill in the 107th session. The House of Representatives passed these health care benefits on July 22, 2002 but they were unable to get passed by the Senate before adjournment of last year's session. Senator Inouye has reintroduced a similar bill in the 108th session in the Senate (S. 68). There is overwhelming support for H.R. 664. We must quickly pass this bill to begin the process of restoring benefits that are deserved by the Filipino World War II veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, due to the arrival of my first grandchild, Madeline, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 19, due to the arrival of my first grandchild, Madeline, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to protest the ``compromise'' provision included in the Defense Authorization Act regarding the issue known as concurrent receipt. As we all know, current law requires an offset between military retired pay and VA disability compensation. In effect, our disabled military retirees are paying for their own disability! Both the House and the Senate, in their versions of the Defense Authorization Act, passed significant and appropriate provisions to address this inequity. The Senate bill provided concurrent receipt for all veterans who were qualified to receive both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The House bill provided. it for those veterans with a disability rating of 60 percent or more. Now, we come to the so-called ``compromise'' before us. A compromise, to me, means that you meet somewhere in the middle. This compromise does no such thing. It would set up an alternative ``special pay'' for only military retirees who have combat-related disabilities. These are military retirees with 20 years of service who also: 1. Have a Purple Heart and a disability rating of 10 percent or more for the condition for which they received the Purple Heart, or 2. Have another ``qualifying combat-related disability'' rated at least 60 percent. I have heard that this ``compromise'' is being sold as a good first step. It is not a good first step. It is hardly a step at all. During my ten years in Congress, I cannot recall more than one or two other issues besides concurrent receipt on which I have received so many letters, e-mails, and calls. The expectations of our military retirees have been raised by the House and Senate versions of this bill. It is a disservice to give so little to so few at the last minute. While these veterans with combat-related disabilities are absolutely deserving of recognition, so are the others whom we have been fighting for! I understand that it is expensive to pass concurrent receipt. But disabled veterans did not hesitate when called to serve. They returned home with disabilities they have had to live with ever since. How can we even doubt the need to keep our promises and give them what they deserve? They earned their military retired pay. They deserve their VA disability compensation. The ``compromise'' that is before us today is a disgrace.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, in a region that has been racked with violence and acts of terror, the vicious bombing that took place on July 31, 2002 at Hebrew University stands out as a particularly heinous crime. This is a university that prides itself on its diversity, especially its ability to integrate students and faculty regardless of their ethnic or religious background. It is the oldest university in Israel and has established itself as one of the outstanding universities in the world, one that has gained renown for the quality of its students, teachers and researchers. I feel compelled to comment on this attack for many reasons, not the least of which is that it hit my community, my Congressional district and my friends so personally. The bomb that was detonated in Hebrew University's Frank Sinatra International Student Center cafeteria killed nine young people, including five Americans. Over eighty were injured. Marla Bennett, of San Diego, California, was one of the Americans killed in this senseless assault. Marla was only 24 when her life was taken. She had graduated in 2000 at the top of her class with a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley. At the time of her death, she was studying for her M.A. in Jewish Education at Hebrew University's Rothberg International School's Division of Graduate Studies. She was also jointly enrolled at the Pardes Institute for Jewish Studies. Her ambition was to be a teacher. Marla was not new to Israel, nor even to the Hebrew University. She spent her junior year in college attending the Rothberg International School's One Year Program. She had lived in Israel for a year, during which time she sent home frequent letters brimming with idealism, especially in her ardent belief in Israeli-Palestinian peace. Last May, she wrote that ``At least if I am here I can take an active role in attempting to put back together all that has broken. I can volunteer in the homes of Israelis affected by terrorism, I can put food in collection baskets for Palestinian families.`` Bennett, whose exams were over, had a flight back to San Diego that was scheduled to leave only hours after the time of the attack. Marla Bennett symbolized the goals and objectives of the university she grew to love. She symbolized the striving for academic excellence as well as the search for cooperation and peace that has typified this university since it opened its doors in the mid-1920's. The University's President, Menachem Magidor, summarized this when he wrote in a letter to the New York Times that this was ``an attack on understanding, tolerance and the quest for peace. [It] is a crime not only against Israel or the Jewish people, it is a crime against the free and enlightened world.'' In the wake of this tragedy, President Magidor asked ``whether it still makes sense to strive for a peaceful society based on reason and understanding.'' He concluded that ``the answer came to me clearly, and it is summarized by the Hebrew word `davka'--`despite everything.' We must not let them kill our drive of peace.'' In this spirit, it is important to stress that Hebrew University is continuing its fine academic traditions. Its researchers and scientists are continuing their cutting edge work on projects that are designed to benefit all peoples. It is not surprising that Hebrew University's scientists apply for and receive so many grants from American government agencies including USAID, NIST, NIH and DARPA. Many of these projects are done in cooperation with American universities and research centers. Other Members of Congress have complimented the high quality of research done at Hebrew University and I join in their commendations. Rather than go through a long litany of all of these projects, especially those that have an Israeli, Palestinian and American component, it might be useful to mention just one as typical of the ethos of this special university. The Kuvin Center for the Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases functions within the University's Medical School, which is a world class institution established over 75 years ago. The Kuvin Center has been a leader in infectious disease and parasitological research for over 30 years. Its researchers and physicians have published extensively in the professional literature and it has trained many active scientists in the field. For a number of years, the Kuvin Center has collaborated with Al-Quds University Medical School on a variety of scientific and medical projects. Al-Quds, the pre-eminent university in the West Bank, is located in Abudies, which is near Jerusalem and close to Palestinian hospitals, clinics and laboratories. The two institutions are now proposing a joint project for ``Regional Cooperation on Infectious Diseases'' that will cover the study and control of diarrheal and respiratory diseases, brucellosis, tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, HIV infections and zoonotic diseases such as leishmaniasis, and rabies. Preventing and treating these diseases are of enormous importance to the welfare of the region as a whole. The Congress fully recognizes and supports these types of cooperative Israeli-Palestinian health initiatives. The Foreign Operations bill for Fiscal Year 2003, which has passed through the Appropriations Committee, includes language on the Kuvin Center/Al Quds cooperation. I am pleased that the Committee included the following paragraph in the report accompanying this bill: The Committee acknowledges that one of the primary objectives of the West Bank and Gaza program is to create viable infrastructure in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas to ensure the health and welfare of the Palestinian people. Al Quds University, in cooperation with the Kuvin Center for Infectious Diseases of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has proposed the establishment of a regional health and disease program, which would work to build an effective infrastructure to deal with serious health and disease problems among the Palestinian people. The Committee understands that cooperative programs of this nature are rare in the current environment, and urges AID to work, though the West Bank and Gaza program, to help Al Quds and the Kuvin Center begin this initiative. This project is designed to enable the United States to provide $15 million over five years to this cooperative effort to deal with infectious diseases. This program does not require any additional appropriations. The proposed expenditure of these funds is an indication of Congressional intent on just how American money that has already been allocated can best be used in a productive capacity for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Thus, the Kuvin Center-Hebrew University/Al Quds University cooperative effort will serve as a model of how the United States, Israel and the Palestinians can work together on projects that will benefit the entire region. While Marla Bennett and the four other Americans who were killed, together with four Israelis, cannot ever come back to life, it is important to preserve their memory by continuing with projects such as this one. It is the very least we can do for them, for their ideals and for their dreams. Even more important, it will serve as a step toward a better future for the entire region.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 469, I was conducting official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 465, I was conducting official business in my San Diego, CA, district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 466, I was conducting official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 464, I was conducting official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468, I was conducting official business in my San Diego, California district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''