Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York just spoke of the inability of our budget to handle the needs of our people. I want to speak to the veterans' budget, the veteran parts of this budget, because the same is true there. We simply have let our veterans down in this budget. We have not honored the promise, we have not honored our commitment, we have not honored our contract with our Nation's veterans. Now, we are fond on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, at least on the Democratic side, of saying that you do not have a surplus until you have paid your bills, and we have not paid our bills to the Nation's veterans. We had a decade of flat-line budgeting, and, as a result, the quality of medical care declined, the waiting times for appointments expanded greatly, and the new diseases and the diseases of aging veterans could not be handled with the same professionalism as previously. So we have not paid our bills to our Nation's veterans. Now, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee said that we added $1 billion to last year's budget. Well, all independent analysts say that $1 billion for our veterans' health care system barely keeps up with inflation and does not allow us to make the gains that we had promised over the last decade. I am going to make several amendments to this bill when the time is appropriate to bring the level of the budget up to a more appropriate level, especially in health care. All the veterans' groups in this Nation got together to produce something called the Independent Budget. What they did here was a very professional analysis of what was needed to care for our veterans, not just give me more money here or give me more money there, but let us reduce the waiting times to this number of days by putting this much money in. Let us increase the number of positions in the Benefits Administration so we can decrease the waiting times for adjudication. Let us make sure we can have research that will deal with the new diseases, like hepatitis C and the Persian Gulf War illness. That is what this Independent Budget does, and that is what this Congress ought to do. So I will be making amendments to increase the health care budget by $1.7 billion, which is what the veterans groups' analysis says. We will try to make improvements in the health research budget. We will try to make amendments to treat such diseases as hepatitis C and also to treat the Filipino veterans of World War II who we have denied care to for the last 50 years. So we will make those amendments. I hope they will get the similar waiver that you have for emergency funding, that you have for other items. Let us really keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments No. 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I add my voice to those of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who have said there are stunning examples in this bill of how the tax cut has forced us into insufficient funding for important programs. I join everybody who has spoken in thanking the Chair and the ranking member for doing what they can with the insufficient budget they had. Let me just add another stunning example, as my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts said, of the social harm that has been done by insufficient funding. We all have said we have added $1 billion to the health care for our veterans in this budget. That is true. But $1 billion, given the inflationary cost of health care in this Nation, barely keeps up with that inflation; $1 billion barely keeps up with the inflation. How do we make up for all the years that we have not granted sufficient funding to our Nation's veterans? Of all people, these are the folks who we should take care of before we declare a surplus, before we give a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of our Nation. It is our veterans who have made this Nation the prosperous one it is. Yet, they have come last, again. The so-called Independent budget that is put out by the veterans service organizations of this Nation, virtually every single veterans' organization has contributed to this independent budget, they think another $1.7 billion is necessary for the health care for our Nation's veterans to keep up with inflation and to deal with problems such as Hepatitis C, with problems of our aging veteran population, with bringing down the incredible 5 months and 8 months and year-long waiting times for specialty doctors. So I will be proposing an amendment, when we get to that stage in the bill, to give $1.7 billion extra. We have emergency funding in this bill now. I would hope that this House would agree with me that the funding for our veterans is an emergency, that we ought to declare our support for our Nation's veterans and provide this level of funding. There will be amendments to do that. There will be amendments to increase the medical research budget, to increase the budget to fight and treat Hepatitis C victims, and there will be amendments to give health care to the 75,000 Filipino veterans of World War II, one-third of them citizens of this Nation, and the others living in the Philippines who have contributed to our Nation's victory in World War II. It is time that we supported them.

Mr. FILNER

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

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Michigan. I thought this was a good debate. I think it is a debate that is most important to the American people and we will continue it on. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) that those of us who have a problem have responsibility for solutions, and that will come in the later debates. So I thank all for the high level of this debate.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is only one sentence long, may be the most significant sentence that we vote on in this Congress, because it would prevent any funding being used for the purpose of implementing a Social Security privatization plan. Now, why must we take what seemingly looks like a drastic step? Because we have seen the report that was just issued by President Bush's Social Security Commission, a commission hand-picked by the White House because they already supported a privatization plan. This report is obviously the first step towards setting the stage of robbing a vital benefit for seniors. Mr. Chairman, the deck has been stacked, the process has been rigged, and we must stop it in its tracks. Social Security has come to be the cornerstone of our Nation's income protection system and provides disability, retirement, and life insurance protection to virtually all American citizens. Obviously, the system requires continued evaluation, but it is not in crisis today. But the interim report of the Presidential Commission tries to create a crisis, a crisis that does not exist. Even if we did nothing about Social Security, and nobody is suggesting that, but even if we did nothing, the system would pay full benefits through the year 2038. This is a manageable problem, not a catastrophe that requires risky and radical solutions. The proposed privatization program which plans to take approximately 2 percent of the payroll tax for Social Security to allow individuals to invest in private accounts would result in a loss of over $1 trillion from the Social Security system between this year and 2011, and would decrease benefits by 50 percent. My constituents do not want to see that decrease, and my constituents are unwilling to have their secure retirement gambled away in the stock market. The stock market is not the way, Mr. Chairman, to determine who will be financially able and stable in their retirement years. We know that privatization would also decrease benefits for disabled beneficiaries and survivors. Social Security is more than a retirement program. Almost one-third of its beneficiaries receive benefits because they or a family member are disabled or because a family member has died. In the case of survivors and those disabled, recipients have a shorter time period to accumulate balances in their individual accounts, so their benefits would be drastically reduced under a privatization plan. Women in this Nation would be disproportionately affected and hurt, and we will hear statements to that effect from my colleagues. Privatizing Social Security, Mr. Chairman, is tantamount to gambling with the security of millions of Americans. It would expose workers and retirees to unacceptable risks, as well as substantial administrative fees that would eat into the returns. It would undermine the concept that through Social Security, we take care of each other, from neighbor to neighbor, and from generation to generation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his eloquent statement. I would point out to our friends across the aisle, we are bringing up this issue on account of the Vice President, and our motives have been attacked for this. I will tell my colleagues, we are a year into an incredible crisis on the West Coast; and yet, the majority party of this House has not allowed a debate on this issue. We have not been granted any amendments; we have not been granted any bills. I wrote to the Speaker weeks ago saying, let us have an up or down vote on these issues, of whether we should have cost-based rates on the West Coast, on whether be should have refunds of criminal overcharges. All we are asking is for a debate on this issue and a discussion and a vote. We cannot get it from this party. So we have had to use issues that come up in other bills to make our point. Our point has been made and we are going to keep making it until we get it addressed. We are paying double and triple charges on the West Coast for our electricity, not because that is what the market, the free market gave us, that is because that is what a manipulated market gave us. We have been paying those bills for a year; we have been overcharged between $10 billion and $20 billion, and we want a refund on those overcharges.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee-Filner amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this issue. We are not trying to embarrass the Vice President of the United States; we are trying to embarrass the administration for not having an energy policy for this country. We are not arguing whether the taxpayer is going to have this bill one way or the other; we are arguing that the people in the West Coast are paying double and triple the prices they paid last year, and they have no help. The administration will not step in and do anything about their prices, will not do anything about the energy cartel that is doing this. The Vice President does not have to worry about that. He just asks for a shift of the accounts. We are not accusing the Vice President of being irresponsible; we are accusing the Vice President of being clueless. We have suffered for a year in San Diego, California, and the West Coast, with manipulated prices that have doubled and tripled what we were paying a year ago. Think of the small business person who is paying $700 or $800 a month, and, 60 days after deregulation, is paying $2,500 a month. I want the Vice President to think about the small business person who had to close his doors because he did not have anybody to take his bill up. And he conserves. I will accept your premise that the Vice President conserves. Our people conserved, and what happened? Their price went up, and they did not have anybody to bail them out. Sixty-five percent of small businesses in San Diego County face bankruptcy today. We have asked the administration for help. What about the person on fixed income who was paying $40 or $50 a month and is facing a bill of $150 to $200 a month, and he or she conserved? They are using 30, 40, 50 percent less electricity and their price doubled or tripled anyway. Do they have the Navy to bail them out? No. We asked the administration, we have asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a year now, bring us cost-based rates to the West Coast. That is what went on in this country for almost a century, the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. It costs 2 or 3 cents a kilowatt to produce, the energy companies charge 3 or 4 cents, and they were making a real hell of a profit there. We were told to buy utility stocks when we grew up, that is the safest. That same 2 cents or 3 cents per kilowatt of electricity was selling for $3 or $4 recently. We do not have a free market in electricity on the West Coast; we have a manipulated market that is throwing people out of business, throwing people out of their homes, and the electricity crisis, Mr. Chairman, still exists. Prices have gone down recently, but I will tell you the retail prices were not affected by that change, and my small businesses in San Diego and the rest of California and the West Coast are facing bankruptcy. Now, Mr. Cheney, who met with the Congress, people did not want to hear that. Now, I know why they did not want to hear it. He did not care whether the prices went up. He did not care if you conserved and your prices went up. It is not coming out of his budget. Just shift the budget over, coming out of the Navy budget. I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), we are not arguing whether the taxpayer is going to pay one way or another. We are not arguing that Mr. Cheney is irresponsible. We are saying the administration is clueless about the suffering of the people who live on the West Coast and who have been paying these outrageous prices for a year. And we cannot transfer them to the Navy, although I am asking my constituents, since this seems to be the administration policy, shift your bills over to the Navy, I am asking all my constituents and all the people across the country, send your bills to the Navy care of the Vice President. Here is the address. Send your bills, which have doubled or tripled over the last year, to the U.S. Navy, care of Vice President Cheney, who lives at what was called the U.S. Naval Observatory. If that is the administration policy, let us take advantage of it. But I will tell you, if the Vice President thinks that they can escape a responsible energy policy, I challenge him to come to the West Coast and show how he has paid for his electricity bills.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I came in as the majority leader was praising the Vice President and the hard job that he does. All of us on this side of the aisle agree with that. It is an august office, and he is working hard at his job. But I will tell the Members, I would say to the majority leader, the small business people in my community are worthy of equal respect for working hard every day, for going to their jobs, for supporting their families, for working 16 and 18 hours a day. They conserve their electricity. They are trying to make their ends meet. They are facing an electricity market which puts them out of business. Scores of business people in my district are out of business, I would say to the leader. That is the tragedy of this crisis, and 65 percent of all small business in my county face bankruptcy this year. We need to support them. We need to talk about the glory of their jobs. How about the tough life that people on fixed incomes have, trying to make decisions between cooling their home and having a somewhat comfortable evening, even if their thermostats are set at 78 or 80 or higher; trying to buy their prescriptions; trying to buy their food? Their bill goes up from $40 or $50 to $150 or $200. They do not have the option, I would say to the majority leader, of asking the Navy to pay their bill. These are people who have worked their whole lives for America. They have been veterans. They have supported and raised children and grandchildren. They are doing their jobs, just like the Vice President is doing his job. They are as worthy of our support and our eloquence as is the Vice President. We have asked the leader and the Speaker, we have asked and begged them, put on the floor of the House a bill that allows us in our view to help these people. If they do not agree with it, vote it down, but give us a chance to debate these issues in a realistic fashion, so we do not have to use such appropriation bills that they find so difficult for us to speak on. Give us an up-or-down vote on cost-based rates for the West coast. Give us an up-or-down vote on the refund of $10 billion to $20 billion of overcharges. They cannot shift their bills to the Navy. They cannot get a supplemental appropriation that we just passed last week that paid $750 million because the military had increased electricity bills on the West Coast. They got their bills paid for. How come my constituents, the constituents of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the constituents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), cannot have their overcharges paid? I will tell the Members, they are criminal overcharges. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found the prices that we pay in California and the West Coast to be illegal. They are illegal. Yet, we have paid them for 1 year. I would ask the leader, yes, let us praise the Vice President, but let us praise the average people in our districts who are being brought to their knees by these prices.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from Illinois earlier had said that this amendment demeans the House. I take what the gentleman says very seriously, because he has worked for this House, this institution, and loves this institution; and I know that. But I would say to the gentleman, we would be bringing up these amendments on energy bills if we were allowed to by the majority. I would like you, Mr. LaHood, to go with me to the Committee on Rules when this energy bill you spoke of does come up, and ask them to give us the amendments that we have asked for. Ask them to give us the amendments for cost-base rates in the West; ask them to give us the amendments for overcharges; ask them to give us the amendments that we have sought. I have written to the Speaker weeks ago to say schedule a bill that treats this crisis. We have been here for a year with this crisis, and have you responded? No. That is what demeans the House, our inability to talk about a crisis affecting America except in this context.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 256, I was carrying out official duties in my District and missed this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Well, now we do know what the administration's energy plan is, Mr. Speaker. When my constituents' bills doubled and tripled in the last year, we asked for Federal help to stop the price gouging and refund those criminal overcharges, but the administration turned a deaf ear. But yesterday, when the Vice President's bill was found to be doubled or almost tripled to $186,000, what did he do? He said the Navy is going to bail me out. I do not have to conserve. I do not have to worry about energy policy; the Navy will pay my $186,000. So I am asking all my constituents and people all around the country to send their utility bills, which have doubled or tripled, to the Navy, care of the Vice President. That seems to be what the energy policy is of this Nation. Have the Navy pay our utility bills. That is better than any energy policy that can serve this Nation. So send all electricity bills to the Navy, care of the Vice President; and maybe they will listen to what we are demanding for America.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, we all love, cherish and respect our flag. Our flag is a symbol of our great nation, a symbol of our fundamental values of freedom, liberty, justice and opportunity. And it is those values we must protect. I stand today with Jim Warner, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, who said: ``Rejecting this amendment would not mean that we agree with those who burned our flag, or even that they have been forgiven. It would, instead, tell the world that freedom of expression means freedom, even for those expressions we find repugnant.'' I stand today with the San Diego Union-Tribune, my hometown paper, which has editorialized against ``the drastic step of amending the Constitution because of the abhorrent conduct of that lone demonstrator and the handful of others who seek attention from time to time by burning the flag.'' Compromising the Bill of Rights, which has stood the test of time, is not the action needed to ensure the strength of our nation. We must do that through proper education of our children--nurturing their love and patriotism of our country--and respect for our flag and national symbols. We can choose the easy path and simply make a law and outlaw an action. Or we can take the difficult and correct path of guiding our citizens back to the ideals of our founding fathers. The more difficult path puts true meaning back into our respect for the flag. I choose the more meaningful path, the one that will guarantee that our flag will fly proudly--and our Bill of Rights will continue unchanged--for generations to come.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I have say to the President, hello. We in California and the rest of the Nation are still facing an energy crisis. Fifty-five percent of the small businesses in my community of San Diego face bankruptcy this year because of the high prices, and yet, not one of the 105 recommendations in the President's energy plan deal with this situation in California and the West. None of the President's speakers sent out over the weekend came out West. Why not, Mr. President? We are facing a crisis of price. Please address this crisis. Please institute cost-based rates for electricity in California and refund the criminal overcharges that we have been paying since last June. Mr. President, hello. We in California are still suffering.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I think this administration has a faith-based energy policy. They not only pray for us to do something, they pray to the market where there is no market.

Mr. FILNER. The gentleman said it earlier, that Enron and the President were trying to get a national system which this could then more readily control. But I would like to also underline what the gentleman just said both manipulation of the market to increase the prices and also the incredible suffering in California and the West. Not only does that market control give them the ability to fix the prices, but, tragically, for the future it allows them to pick and choose which energy sources will be studied and given development, and they have chosen, because they cannot control it, not to allow research and development into solar, into wind power, into geothermal and all these other renewables, where we know a big part of the answer for our future energy needs lies, and yet we have had no interest in them because these companies, which control the price, control the research and development also and have refused to allow that to occur. So this Congress ought to be looking not only at, as the President, new production and et cetera of the fossil fuels, but the structure, the economic structure of the energy industry, which not only has fixed the prices, but has foreclosed or attempted to foreclose part of our future by not allowing the research and development that we so desperately need in these other areas.

Mr. FILNER. What they have done with their tax plan is, of course, give several trillion dollars to the wealthiest of our Nation, where if you put tax incentives into the photovoltaic technology you mentioned, put tax incentives into some of these renewables, we could bring down the price and make it affordable. We in San Diego boast of our 330 days or so of sunny weather. That sustains solar panels, that sustains photovoltaic cells. If we could bring down that price and put that technology into work in our homes and businesses, we would be free of this energy cartel that we have been talking about tonight that has so disrupted our lives and future. So, in every way where you look, tax policy, FERC, the way the President's energy policy is, we see a dedicated effort to deny American citizens a future of low-cost, reliable sustainable energy. I think that is a criminal offense, in my opinion, and this Congress should take greater heed of what is occurring. I thank the gentleman for educating us tonight.

Mr. FILNER. Amen.