Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my fellow colleague.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the House has the pleasure of supporting a bipartisan amendment that will help clean up the environment and could possibly save hundreds of millions of dollars for the American taxpayer. It is an amendment that is supported by not only the chairman, but also the ranking member of the committee. It is an amendment that hopefully can be used as an example of bipartisan ship and international cooperation, for the good of the taxpayers of this country and for the environment in the United States and Mexico. Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically addresses an issue that has gone on for much too long, it is something that addresses the issue of the Tijuana sewage problem that has for so long polluted the beaches of southern California. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) has worked with me on this issue in order to pursue a solution that may be able to save hundreds of millions of dollars. The issue really is tied to the fact that Tijuana does not have adequate sewage treatment capabilities at this time and has not historically had those. This amendment would encourage a bipartisan minute order between Mexico and the United States, through the vehicle of the International Boundary and Water Commission, that specifically states that the agencies will work together and cooperate in finally addressing the treatment of the sewage and the appropriate disposal of that sewage, in consistency with not only the Clean Water Act of the United States, but also with Mexican environmental regulations. This amendment specifically is a sense of Congress, and it is a sense of Congress supporting the concept that the Administration, working with Mexico, will look at the most cost-effective alternatives and opportunities of treating Mexican sewage. That opportunity may exist in the United States, but it may also exist in Mexico. It may seem like a rather novel idea to some people, but I think if we have the potential to treat Mexican sewage in Mexico and do it cheaper and in a more environmentally sensitive manner, than what we could do on our side of the border, we not only have a right, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to look into this. I would like to include for the Record a statement from the Surfrider Foundation of San Diego County dated July 9, 1999. It is titled, the Surfrider Policy Regarding Delays in Achieving Secondary Treatment at the U.S.-Mexico Border. Mr. Chairman, I will just quote briefly from this statement. Surfrider states in their communique that ``a comprehensive solution will offer the benefits of timeliness as well as the consideration of other priority issues such as the ability to treat all of the sewage problems within the region.'' It says that the proposal is within the existing systems of wastewater treatment that will benefit both Mexico and the United States. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this simple, bipartisan, and common-sense amendment. This may seen like a relatively minor element of such an important and sweeping bill, but it has a potentially huge positive impact on the public health and environment of the international border region between the cities of Tijuana and San Diego. I would ask our colleagues to focus on it for just a moment, and give it your attention and support. Many of you are well aware of the ongoing health and environmental threats which have existed along this border region for decades as a result of renegade flows of untreated sewage from Mexico. You have heard me and my colleague Mr. Filner speak to this problem on a number of occasions, and I am happy to report that progress has been made in recent years and months, and is being made even now. An International Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) has been constructed on the U.S. side right at the border and is operating now, treating Mexican sewage to primary levels, with a second treatment component to follow. After a lengthy environmental review of alternatives for providing the required levels of secondary treatment, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with selecting and implementing an environmentally preferable secondary alternative. Right now, the leading alternative is a 25 mgd plant which would consist of an arerated ponding system, which under existing international agreement would be constructed on the U.S. side of the border. We have come a long way to reach this point, and we now find ourselves at something of a strategic crossroads. I wholeheartedly support secondary treatment of these sewage flows, in order to better protect the beaches, estuaries, and citizens on both sides of the border region. However, it has become clear that the secondary ponds alternative which could be constructed on the U.S. side, while clearly benefited, will be overwhelmed and operating beyond its capacity--25 million gallons per day (mgd)--from its day of operation. Under these circumstances, we would need to immediately begin working on establishing a means to treat the excess capacity of flows--50 mgd and higher--on the U.S. side of the border. This will necessarily take additional time to develop, and additional U.S. tax dollars to construct and implement. I am more than willing to spend whatever time and money may be needed in order to deal with this problem conclusively, but both time and available dollars are precious commodities, especially when the public health continues to be at risk. An opportunity has emerged to ``think outside the box'' and carefully consider a progressive and comprehensive strategy which would entail a public-private partnership, and benefit the entire region well into the future, by constructing in Mexico a 25 mgd treatment plant, using the same ponding technology, but with the capacity for safely treating anticipated future flows of 50 to even 100 mgd. In the process, this facility would be able to reclaim treated wastewater and make it available to the rapidly expanding business and industrial sectors of Tijuana. In this growing and arid border region, water is a scarce commodity, and water reclaimed from treatment facilities could free up precious potable water for use in Mexican households. There is tremendous potential in this innovative approach, and the intent of our amendment is to provide every encouragement that it be pursued to the fullest. We simply want to send the message that Congress supports the idea of a binational agreement, which would be needed in order to facilitate the development and implementation of such a public-private arrangement, with the consent of both federal governments. This potential strategy has considerable popular support in the region, including the City of San Diego and other local elected officials, and respected environmental organizations such as the Surfrider Foundation. I have a brief statement on this topic from the Surfrider Foundation which I would ask to be entered into the record at this point. If it can be developed and implemented, a long-term and comprehensive solution to a chronic environmental problem will be at hand, U.S. tax dollars will be saved, a new source of reclaimed water will be available to a ready market in Mexico, and the children and families of both Tijuana and San Diego will be able to go to their beaches, play in the estuaries, fish in the oceans, and live their lives in their communities without the chronic stigma and health threat of sewage pollution which is an unfortunate fact of life in the region. The amendment is respectful of the sovereignty of both nations, and the missions of local, state, and federal governments and agencies which are working on this issue on both sides of the border. Its intent is simply to establish some momentum behind this strategy, and indicate that this Congress is serious in encouraging that it be fully explored and evaluated by both governments and other involved stakeholders as a solution for the region's sewage problem. There is work that remains to be done at several levels for such a scenario to unfold, but its potential is tremendous, and we can help grow this potential today by supporting this amendment, and laying the groundwork for what could be the final chapter of one of the biggest and for too long most overlooked environmental problems this country has ever seen. Please help explore this possibility by supporting the Bilbray-Filner amendment. Surfrider Foundation Policy Regarding Delays in Achieving Secondary Treatment at the U.S. Mexican Border Currently, more than 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of raw, untreated sewage enters the Tijuana River and the Tijuana Municipal Wastewater System. Less than half of this, approximately 25 mgd, is treated to advanced primary standards at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant (ITP) and discharged into the ocean via the South Bay ocean outfall. A portion of the remaining untreated sewage, up to 17mgd, receives some indeterminate level of treatment at the San Antonio de Los Buenos Treatment Plant in Mexico. The remainder of untreated sewage is discharged directly into the nearshore marine environment at the mouth of the Tijuana River and at Punta Banderas, 5 miles south of the Border. Together with numerous other groups, the San Diego County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation is concerned about the environmental impacts and human health risks of discharging any raw sewage into the ocean, as well as effluent that receives anything less than secondary treatment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) are required to achieve secondary standards of treatment for all sewage discharged from the ITP by December 2000. Several options for an appropriate treatment plant have been considered by EPA and IBWC, however, no final preferred option has been chosen. The frontrunner to date is a 25mgd secondary treatment plant using ``Completely Mixed Aerated'' pond technology at the ``Hofer'' site adjacent to the ITP. Because the deadline to begin construction of a secondary treatment plant which would be operational by the December date has passed, the agencies have sought more time to select a preferred alternative. Additionally, this added time as been sought to fully consider options not previously considered, which would provide for a comprehensive solution to the known and future anticipated volume of sewage. The Surfrider Foundation agrees with many others that secondary treatment must be achieved as quickly as possible. The harmful effects to the deep ocean environment, the public, as well as to the beaches and beach communities of southern San Diego County must not continue. However, recognizing that a partial solution is no solution, the Surfrider Foundation is strongly in favor of a comprehensive solution, fully aware of the risk of slight delay. A comprehensive solution will offer the benefits of timeliness as well as the consideration of other priority issues such as the ability to treat all present and future flows, impact of the plant location upon the immediate environment and population, plant expansion capability, feasibility of beneficial water reuse, proper sludge handling, and the relationship and compatibility of the proposal within the existing system of wastewater treatment in both the U.S. and Mexico. Therefore, the Surfrider Foundation will support the EPA and the IBWC in their efforts to provide comprehensive secondary treatment of all sewage flowing from the Tijuana River as quickly as possible.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I just had to come up and make a statement about something that one of my colleagues was addressing, the issue of the Cuban immigrants who were basically forced to be accepted within the United States shores. It was one of the interesting situations where we had a group of people in a boat that were directed to stop by the Coast Guard and a few of them jump overboard and violate the direction and swim ashore and get to stay on U.S. soil permanently under a refugee status, while those who played by the rules, at least took direction, technically were not supposed to stay here. The absurdity of the situation is that then somebody has a demonstration protesting the fact that those who abide by the rules have to go back to Cuba, and they reverse the policy and say all of them can stay. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we address the issue that our refugee system and our immigration policy do not follow common sense. I know this is not politically correct to talk about, but frankly I think that common sense is always politically correct; that we have people that want to come to this country legally, play by the rules, want to enter legally and they are told they cannot, while we reward those who are breaking the rules and coming into our country illegally. Mr. Speaker, I ask us to correct this issue and address it here on the House floor.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to stand in support of the gentleman's resolution. Some of our colleagues stood up here today and praised the President for coming across with the support for helping to finance the cost of pharmaceuticals for our seniors, and the issue of Social Security being taken off budget. And I would like to say that I think those of us on the Republican side praise the President for coming over and supporting some of the concepts that Congress took action on not too long ago, this month, in saying that Social Security is a trust fund, not a slush fund. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has been trying to reach consensus on what we should be able to work out some time within the near future, and that is the ability of seniors to be able to have their pharmaceutical drugs paid for. So I, for one, am going to stand up here today not only with the chairman but also to praise the President for coming across and supporting a lot of congressional priorities. But I think the issue of pharmaceutical drugs with Medicare is still treating symptoms of the problem, and that is we have these diseases which continue to be a problem in our society. The resolution of the chairman really, as we would say, is an investment in the future. Because if we can avoid or reduce diseases such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, if we can reduce stroke, then we can reduce the cost of having to treat problems related to those diseases. This resolution really says that it is time that America makes a commitment to investing in our public health just as we invest in our infrastructure, roads, bridges, and canals. I would strongly support the contention of the chairman that we need to double our investment. In fact, I would say clearly by comparison that Americans one day are going to wake up to the fact that in 1960 President Kennedy stood up and challenged this country to put a man of the Moon within 10 years, and at that time we increased the funding to a level that would be about 10 times what we spend on public health research, in the process of putting somebody on the Moon. That kind of national commitment was made possible by strong leadership but really the big point was that level of commitment resulted within 10 years in the fulfillment of the promise and fulfillment of the commitment, and the fulfillment of the goal of placing a man on the Moon. I think we can all agree, when it comes down to affecting our families, our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren's lives, that the one thing that really could totally dwarf placing somebody on the Moon is the ability to end cancer as we know it, to end heart disease as we know it, to make Alzheimer's a thing of the past, such as polio has become practically in our society, to take things like stroke and put it in the category of smallpox. This is really a chance for us to make that commitment, with all the resources we have available, not by buying from this group or that special group or promising this group that we are going to give them more money. This is a promise to all Americans, the globe, all humans, that America at this time and this place is making the type of commitment to public health that was made back in the 1960s for space exploration. The fact is this is our chance to be able to make a commitment. Let us just say this resolution is just a first step at saying we are going to put forth more effort and, hopefully, achieve more of the successes we are going to see in districts like mine. Madam Speaker, San Diego County has one of the most aggressive health research facilities in the world. We are doing the human mapping program that not only allows us to understand what causes heart disease or causes Alzheimer's, but is allowing us to know why the body does what it does so that we can someday avoid these diseases rather than just treat them as we are talking today on the Medicare issue. I want to stand again as not only a San Diegan who has many of these research facilities in his district but also as somebody who has the privilege of serving on the Committee on Health and the Environment and has oversight for many of these operations. I want to thank the chairman, and I want to stand here today and say, all America should be looking at this type of commitment. I want to thank the author of the resolution. Let us move forward and let us rise to the challenge. Just as America rose to the challenge of John Kennedy, I think the resolution of the chairman deserves our commitment to rise and fulfill the promise that our public health strategies can actually provide for America.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in support of this resolution, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for bringing this resolution up. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution , and I want to thank my colleagues who will support this resolution, I am sure, and send a very clear and distinct message. I think we need to clearly define our opposition to the stupidity and the ignorance of the actions that have occurred around Sacramento, and not only for the Jewish community alone but for everyone of faith, to identify the fact that religious intolerance is something this country was founded to oppose. It is all too often in the recent past that we have seen acts of violence against religious institutions. And it does not matter, Mr. Speaker, under our Constitution, if that religious institution is Jewish, is Muslim, is Christian or is Buddhist. It is the concept that those of us in the United States have not only the absolute right but we have the responsibility to express ourselves in a spiritual way and to express our religious feelings, not in hiding down in some catacomb but in the open and in the bright daylight, and that our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, and our temples need to be made a figure of appreciation, not a target of violent, stupid attacks. I am grateful for the chance to be able to articulate that issue. But let me just say strongly I think the people of Sacramento have built on this tragedy by identifying that they want to not only rebuild the synagogues but also to create a museum of tolerance to point out the need for religious tolerance in this society. I want to thank both my colleagues again for bringing this up, because it gives us the chance to remind ourselves that religious tolerance is one of the building blocks that make this country as great as it is today.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I think this is the beginning of a process that we can work together. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that Chairman Shuster on the Transportation Committee has started this process. Traditionally for the last 30 years, Washington has been subsidizing dirty polluting diesel fuel while we have purported to be for clean air. I appreciate Chairman Shuster and Wolf in trying to change that mindset. I would just ask that next year, going into the next millenium, we draw the line and say we will now support the clean air strategies with our commitment of Federal transportation funds. Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the Transportation Appropriations bill, but I want to raise an issue that was discussed last year during the TEA-21 debate. The Federal Government is mandating that communities reduce their emissions from air pollution and is requiring that the private sector clean up its act on air emissions, yet it continues to provide funds to local transportation agencies that are, in fact, polluting the environment. I will give my colleagues an example, and I would ask us to reconsider our priorities in the very near future. We are going to spend $2.7 billion on traditional polluting mass transit using diesel fuel while only $50 million is going to clean technology. I would just ask both Chairmen Wolf and Shuster, who are here today, that next year, when we bring this spending bill up, that the Federal Government makes more of an effort to lead through example and make sure that every Federal transit dollar that is spent, no matter who spends it, is spending it in the purchase and the use of clean technology, clean buses and clean mass transit. For those of us that have worked on air pollution issues, it is frustrating to see the Federal Government, State governments, and local governments mandate that private citizens and the private sector clean up their act, while we have not redirected our resources towards the cleanest technology available. I would just ask the subcommittee chairman if he would be willing to work with we in the next fiscal year to make sure next year's allocation places a priority on the cleanest technology available and that Federal funds should be used on technology that will not only get our people around, but also do it without polluting the air.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and, Madam Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues to remember that when the Constitution, including every amendment, was drafted the drafting fathers assumed they would be reasonable, commonsense applications of laws, and I would like to remind my colleagues that the first amendment existed, A, because of the fifth article which specifically says not only do the legislators of America have a right to amend the Constitution when they think there has been a mistake or there needs to be something clarified, but they have a responsibility to do it. In fact, the first amendment would not be here if the fifth article had not been acted on by the legislative body and other legislators. Madam Speaker, I want to point out one thing, is that we are not talking about the first amendment being restricted. We are talking about, as we have talked about with other amendments, that reasonable commonsense restrictions are not a threat to our constitutional freedoms, but they are the best safeguards that abuses and extremist approaches to our first amendment, second amendment, third amendment and every part of the Constitution is the greatest threat to those constitutional protections. As Thomas Jefferson articulated quite clearly his intention for freedom of speech and the articulation of the first amendment, and that was to encourage the intellectual exchange in our society and not as just a protection to the individual who wanted to speak up, but to the protection of society so that they could get the intellectual exchange and contribute to the dialogue in our community. Madam Speaker, the burning of the American flag is not being expressed as an intellectual exchange. It is just like somebody screaming fire in a movie house. It is someone trying to invoke an emotional response. Screaming fire happens to invoke fear. Burning the American flag is trying to invoke outrage and purposefully trying to invoke an emotional response. That emotional response, just like carnal pornography, is not protected under the first amendment. It has never been perceived to be protected. The intellectual exchange of disagreement about political activity is. But when we get to this emotional response I think we have got to be the reasonable, commonsense approach and say there are some things like burning the flag which do not encourage intellectual exchange in our society. And I want to point out again that those who would not change the Constitution no matter what, we need sometimes to correct mistakes made by the Supreme Court. That is why our Constitution has Article V. I think we all agree, I think everyone agrees, that the Dred Scott decision was an absolute farce, it was wrong, it should not have been done. So the 14th amendment was passed to address that mistake, and I think history has proven that the 14th amendment overall was a good piece of legislation and was an amendment that was needed. Madam Speaker, I think history is going to prove that this amendment to the Constitution is desperately needed to correct a wrong the Supreme Court has made just recently that they had not for 200 years.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a 14-year-old boy who confronted me with the fact that he was able to get in his hand, because he found some videos, a material that he, as a 14-year-old, knew was obscene violence. There is going to be a lot of debate about the Bill of Rights today and tomorrow. But all I have got to say is that those of my colleagues that so fear any one of the restrictions on any one of the Bill of Rights, remember that reasonable applications of restrictions do not threaten the Bill of Rights, they reinforce and protect them. And I would ask my colleagues to understand that we have accepted, as a society, that we do not accept sexual obscenity to be sold to our children. I praise the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for being brave enough to confront us with the fact that violent obscenity should not be sold to our children either. I hear my colleagues who are outraged at Joe Camel somehow getting our kids to smoke and demanding that that be stopped. But if they would see the videos and the VCRs and the other information that our children are being exposed to, then they would see what a 14-year-old would know; that obscene, violent action should not be sold to our children.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to think, instead of feel. I know they are worried about a negative message being sent. But let me say to my colleague that Mexico places their troops along the border because they recognize that the battle against drugs is going to have to be fought on the border. The concept of political correctness, of what might look bad is unimportant to Mexico. They know how desperate the situation is. They put their troops where the problem exists. We send our troops all over the world. We are ready to send another 7,000 to Kosovo to protect other neighborhoods and other borders. What about the American neighborhoods that are being poisoned by drugs today? Is it too much to ask that the American taxpayer who pays for these troops, be allowed to be protected from drugs by these troops? Madam Chairman, I want to point out, almost every State along the border has committed its National Guard to helping along the border at addressing this crisis. Is it too much to say, with good training and appropriate supervision, that the United States Federal Government will make its contribution, too, in every way possible? Please, common sense says we should be doing as much for our American citizens as we are doing for people all over the world.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to echo, for once I would like to echo the position of my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank): Let us not be enablers. We are enabling Europe not to bear their fair share of the responsibility of defending their neighborhood. The United States has restructured our presence all over the world, but explain to the people of America, where we are going have 100,000 troops in Europe to defend Europe, but we are now not going to have any troops in the Panama Canal Zone; that the Western Hemisphere is somehow not quite as important as Europe. We have gone through changes. I will remind my colleagues, we have gotten out of the Philippines, we have pulled out of places all over the world where we have found now we need to restructure. We went into Europe with NATO with a plan of defending Europe and to keep NATO from being overrun within a week. I ask my colleagues, who is planning to overrun Europe within a week? Who can constitute the threat to justify the American presence? In fact, it is not there. The most important issue is this: We continue to subsidize the European community at the price of American taxpayers. We not only have a right, we have a responsibility to expect our allies to tow their fair share. Being an ally does not mean how many troops we put on their soil. Australia is a major ally of this country. There are 300 U.S. troops in Australia. Does that make them less of an ally than Europe? Let us use that as an example: Fair share. Help Europe do the right thing and defend themselves on their soil, and use us as an aid, but not a crutch.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of my dear colleague from the other side of the aisle on the issue of the trust fund being just at that, a trust fund. In California we have had for decades a law that we cannot raid one trust fund and shift it over to other uses. I guess in Washington it seems very technical on this issue, but I guess I will try to explain it as simply as possible. Social Security is called a trust fund, not a slush fund. It is not a pool of money to be used in any manner that somebody wants to if they can get enough votes. Maybe that is why the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is right, a lot of us are looking at the issue that there is not enough lock in the lockbox. Let us be brave enough for us to put it before the Constitution. Let us who really stands for protecting the Social Security Trust Fund in the long run. But this proposal, Mr. Speaker, is the first step. It is the first step in reforming Social Security. If we are not willing to at least vote for a bill that says we are going to start treating it as a trust fund and not a slush fund, if we are not willing to vote for this proposal, for God's sake, how are we going to find the intestinal fortitude to be able to vote for the other ones we all know are coming down the pike? This is the statement of credibility and a statement of commitment that we need to start with down the long road towards saving Social Security and Medicare as we know it. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to find excuses to walk away from this first step, but to start this long journey with this first step of voting for this resolution.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of discussion here today about international cooperation, and I would just ask my colleagues to consider that we make as much effort to have some across the aisle bipartisan cooperation here in the House and in the Senate as we talk about between countries. One issue that I would ask my colleague to consider as this bill goes into conference with the Senate is the issue of the Triana project. Now I know that there are those that want to push the Triana project because they perceive it as a Democrat issue, and there are those that want to oppose it because they perceive it as a Democrat issue. But I think that there is some issues here that need to be discussed, and I would just ask the conferees as this bill moves forward to give at least the strong science part of Triana a benefit of the doubt. We have the capability with this project, if it is executed appropriately and the partisan politics is kept out of it as much as possible, to finally settle the issue of global warming and finally be able to say is the billions of dollars that we are considering spending on global warming, is it appropriate and is it needed? So I would stand here today and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us not use Triana for political advantage, let us not try to formulate a presidential campaign around a scientific research study, and I say sincerely I think both sides bear a degree of responsibility here. There are parts of Triana that I would ask the chairman and the conference committee to take a look at that is based on strong science coming from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and see if that portion of Triana can be preserved and enhanced so that those of us in the policymaking decision can get good, unfiltered information that is not tainted by political agendas to be able to make an informed decision about global warming. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sweeney

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Upton motion to instruct the conferees. The instruction is very, very moderate in this motion. In fact, it does not go as far as most of us would like to go. I think all of us agree that the other House has taken an emergency funding bill and added on so many items to it that it looks more like a Christmas tree than an emergency funding source. Mr. Speaker, I stand here asking us both on the Democratic side and the Republican side to use this resolution in an effort to send a clear message from the House of Representatives not just to the Senate but also to the entire United States that this body will no longer stand by and allow anybody to be able to take an emergency funding bill and use it for special interest legislation. Our chance here is now to have a bipartisan message, very clear to the conferees, both House and Senate, that we are no longer going to tolerate utilizing emergency spending bills as a trough in which to pour pork into. I ask us all to look at this resolution and say it may not be all we want, but it is our one chance to send a clear message to those conferees that if they bring back a bill to this floor that is loaded with pork, it will be dead on arrival.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. We are expecting that it is very possible.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to clarify to Members that they should note that we expect to conclude legislative business on Thursday, April 29, and we will not have any votes on Friday, April 30. We hope this advance notice on scheduling enables Members to adjust their schedules.

Mr. BILBRAY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, right now it is in committee and we are hoping that it will be expedited as quickly as possible. We do not have any guarantees at this time, but the committee is assuring us that they will get it to the floor as soon as possible.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, April 26, 1999, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, for morning hour debates.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the bill, I support the en bloc amendment. I would like to also take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his cooperative effort and willingness to work with me in addressing the concerns that the agricultural community had initially expressed, and which are addressed by the en bloc.