Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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.