Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until midnight tonight, October 5, 1998, to file a conference report on the bill (H.R. 3694) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for intelligence and intelligence- related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, all over America, children and families went to beaches to enjoy summer. But in San Diego County, the children showed up to their beaches to find big contamination signs all over their community. In the City of Imperial Beach where I grew up, my children were greeted with this sign. The EPA was outraged. The environmental community was outraged. You would say, why? Because the pollution that was closing American beaches came from Mexico. The pollution from Mexico continues to flow across the border. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the EPA refuse to be as outraged at American beaches being polluted by foreign people, foreign governments as they are if it would have been an American company. I wish those who claim to want to protect the environment would be as much against pollution from other countries as they are from our own. I think that this desecration of the American community, the desecration of our beautiful beaches in Southern California has to stop. I call on this administration and people who claim to care about the environment to stand up and be as outraged as those of us who showed up at the beaches to be greeted with this sign.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) the chairman of the full Committee on Commerce.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, in 1923, Time magazine published its first issue, Amelia Earhart received a pilot's certificate, Walt and Roy Disney began a movie studio, and two San Diego physicians joined together to establish the area's first multi-specialty group practice. The two physician/surgeons, Clarence Rees, M.D. and Clair Stealy, M.D., believed that patient care would be enhanced if doctors representing multiple specialties worked together. Now, 75 years later, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group is one of the largest multi-specialty groups in Southern California. In 1923, combining specialties was a bold act, but physicians who joined Rees-Stealy soon learned they were able to collaborate with colleagues from other specialties, vastly improving the diagnostic process and providing comprehensive, efficient and thorough patient care in a cost-effective manner. Because of this, Sharp Rees-Stealy became the official physicians for local schools, the police and fire departments and other civic organizations in addition to serving thousands of San Diegans. With the group's unique position in the community, Dr. Stealy initiated the first citywide physician referral service for patients and the first (and largest until 1966) medical library in San Diego. He was also instrumental in starting a teaching service at what was then County Hospital, and was a founding member of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Rees was the first member of the American College of Surgeons west of the Mississippi. Both doctors placed a premium on research as well, establishing the Rees-Stealy Medical Research Foundation in 1938. In 1976, the first satellite office opened in Mira Mesa, and in 1983, the McCausland-Robinson Medical Clinics of Chula Vista merged with Rees-Stealy. In 1985, the medical group took another bold step into the future of health care by affiliating with Sharp HealthCare, creating the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group. This joint venture was the first of its kind in San Diego and attracted national attention. Today, the tradition of quality and caring continues. Sharp Rees- Stealy now has 14 San Diego County locations with more than 280 physicians representing virtually every field of medicine. Sharp Rees- Stealy is one of the few providers who allows its HMO patients to refer themselves to some of its specialists. Patients also have access to 24- hour health care advice, same day primary care appointments, and urgent care centers to deliver care whenever their patients need it. While times have changed over the last 75 years, the doctors and staff at Sharp Rees-Stealy still believe in old-fashioned quality care with a personal touch. I know that my congressional colleagues will join me in congratulating them on their incredible record and wish them the very best for the next 75 years.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 218.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I think that we have got to remember that the United States signed a treaty with the people of Mexico. This treaty specifically required that Mexican nationals who are in the territory to be annexed by the United States make a decision, a decision to either pack up and go to Mexico and retain their Mexican citizenship and to abandon their property in the U.S., or to stay in the United States and, as the treaty states, take on the embodiment of the people of the United States, take on the obligations of the culture and the citizenship of the United States. With that responsibility, to take on the obligations of citizens of United States, came the rights that were vested by all American citizens, either born or nationalized or converted through the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. We are talking about the fact that we need to address the fact that with the responsibilities that the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo required these Mexican nationals to take on came the rights of American citizens, the right to be able to have property rights, to be able to have due process. Let us be very frank about that: It was a very, very tough time to try to figure out how a nation could absorb such a huge area as the Mexican cessation. And let us be frank about that; justice and property rights were violated again and again, as it does in any country. We are not immune from those problems. I would just ask that we support the gentleman from New Mexico's bill, but let us support this rule, let us address it and debate it, but also talk about the fact that with the responsibilities of citizenship comes the rights of property protection. Those rights were not always guaranteed, and need to be addressed. This is a chance for this Congress to revisit this issue, to address it, and then to be able to say is it or is it not appropriate that we move on from now on. I think, Madam Speaker, this is an issue of property rights, but it is also an issue of human rights. If we expect those nationals and their ancestors to bear the responsibilities of citizenship, they should have the rights.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was not just a treaty between two nations, it was a treaty between the United States and individuals that we required to make a choice within a year either to be Mexican citizens or U.S. citizens. In that contract that we signed called the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo, we said there were going to be certain rights that the Federal Government would uphold. One of those rights was the right to be able to retain their property based on appropriate deed evidence. The trouble is, Madam Chairman, the fact is that there were a whole lot of false documents written up. Deeding was made right and left by the Mexican Governors while the U.S. occupational forces were coming on. Sadly about this, those who had a paper in their hand to be able to claim rights were usually those who had just gotten a deed from their buddy who happened to be the Governor, but those who were families like the family who owned Rancho at the Point had been there, the oldest ranch in one part of this territory, that had totally been forgotten because they did not have a deed because their father and grandfather had owned this property. They did not hold the deed, to have a piece of paper. The fact is, as so often, in the process those who had been the scallywags, they had deeds given to them, technically illegally by a Governor in the last minutes of the retention of the Mexican government; they were given deeds, while those who had been long-term owners did not have that piece of paper that the American courts recognize. So those deeds and that evidence was not in hand by the descendants at that time. Let me remind Members, this contract is not just those who owned property at that time. It states, ``* * * and with their heirs.'' And with their heirs, it is the fact that at that time they did not have a piece of paper. Today we have the ability to go into Seville, to go into Madrid, and find the original documents of deed that were not available historically in many ways. In fact, there are many historical documents we are just discovering now in the Mexican archives, or in the Spanish archives. The fact is, there was another negative, Madam Chair. Many grants were not recognized strictly because they were along the frontier with Mexico, and there was a concern about what was perceived as a Mexican threat, that deeds were not granted Mexican or ex-Mexican citizens because of the proximity to the border. We need to rectify that. I support the bill.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow Californian and good friend, Bud Wilson of Chula Vista, who last month completed his one-year term as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America (IIAA), the nation's largest insurance association. Bud's term as president of the IIAA is the crowning accomplishment of his many years of tireless effort and dedication to IIAA, the Insurance Brokers and Agents of the West (IBA West), his 300,000 colleagues across the country, his clients, and his community. Bud's many years of hard work and leadership as an independent insurance agent have resulted in a distinguished career marked by outstanding service to his colleagues and his profession. On the state level, Bud served IBA West on various committees and as president in 1981. From 1983-1986 he served as the IBA West representative on IIAA's Board of State National Directors. In 1987, Bud received the P.S.W. Ramsden Memorial Award, the highest honor conferred by the California state association. Later, when elected chairman of IIAA's Government Affairs Committee, Bud's passion for the legislative process resulted in four highly successful years for the organization. In recognition of his exceptional work, Bud was honored with the IIAA's Sydney O. Smith Legislative Award in 1994. Bud was subsequently elected to IIAA's Executive Committee in 1994 and was selected as IIAA President last year during the Association's 102nd annual convention held in Hawaii. Throughout his time as one of IIAA's top elected officials, he became known for his effectiveness and devotion to the independent agents around the country and for millions of American insurance consumers. In addition to serving his colleagues and clients, Bud has also been extensively involved in his community. He is past-president of the Chula Vista Rotary Club, the Chula Vista Jaycees, the Chula Vista Community Hospital Board of Trustees, and the Chula Vista Salvation Army. He has also helped with numerous other Chula Vista community projects. On an interesting aside my colleagues will appreciate, Bud also has the honor of being the nephew of our former colleague the Honorable Bob Wilson of California. I congratulate my friend and activist citizen for a job extremely well done. Although he is stepping down as IIAA president, I am confident his service to IIAA, his colleagues, and his fellow citizens of Chula Vista will continue for years to come.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), is he opposed to the State of Virginia's law making it illegal for minors to possess and consume tobacco?

Mr. BILBRAY. I am just asking, is the gentleman opposed to the Virginia law?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Washington, after 23 years, and as a parent who brings his children here to live here periodically at times, I think that every child of D.C. should have the protection without waiting another 23 years for oversight.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as any of those of us that are parents would know, you do whatever, whenever and however you can, whenever you can, to help your children. D.C. has laws against sale. It has laws against buying tobacco. But, sadly, D.C. does not have laws against possession and consumption. The gentleman from California may blame this on one or the other. Now is the time, either vote for kids not to smoke, or walk away and wash your hands. It is not time to play. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record. American Lung Association, San Diego and Imperial Counties, August 5, 1998. Hon. Brian Bilbray, House of Representatives, District Office, San Diego, CA. Dear Congressman Bilbray: It has come to our attention that you are introducing an amendment to the Washington D.C. appropriations bill that would criminalize youth who buy tobacco but would add no penalties or enforcement against retailers who sell tobacco to minors. As you know from the sting conducted by the American Lung Association, minors in D.C. and in other parts of the country can easily buy tobacco products. In San Diego, thanks to active enforcement programs directed towards retailers, the sales rate to minors has been drastically reduced to 21% from over 60% five years ago. However, even though sales to minors in our region are lower than other parts of the country, 21% is still unacceptably high. Those who supply illegal substances to youth must be the primary focus of enforcement operations, whether the substance is alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. Penalizing users and not suppliers is not an effective enforcement strategy. You have co-sponsored a bill, Hansen-Meehan-Waxman that correctly punishes the tobacco industry for its unconscionable targeting of American youth with a deadly and addictive substance. We would expect the same approach to the retailers that sell tobacco to minors. Turning children into lifetime tobacco addicts has been the focus of a multi-billion dollar effort by the tobacco industry. Their campaign has included sophisticated marketing supplemented by efforts to weaken the enforcement of laws that prevent tobacco sales to minors. A major strategy of the tobacco industry is to penalize kids for succumbing to the sophisticated efforts of tobacco manufacturers and retailers, rather than holding the industry accountable. We urge you to remove your amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 619-297-3901. Sincerely, Debra Kelley, Vice President, Government Relations.

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

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, not too long ago the President of the United States made a statement to the news media that as far as he knew it was illegal for minors to smoke in every State in this Union. Well, sadly, Mr. Chairman, that is not true. In fact only 21 States of Union have minor possession and use of tobacco as being illegal. That is embarrassing all of us in government. But what is even more embarrassing than the President not knowing this, what is even more embarrassing than States across this country still not having minors' use of tobacco as being illegal, what is really embarrassing, Mr. Chairman, is that the Federal District has not taken the time to make it illegal for minors to possess and smoke tobacco products. The Federal Government, in our oversight, embarrassingly has created a refuge for underage smoking here in Washington, D.C. While Virginia has made it illegal, while Maryland has sent a strong message to its children that they should not smoke, those of us in Congress and Washington, D.C. have said, well, we have overlooked it. And it is embarrassing, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out that it is embarrassing not to those of us in government, it is embarrassing to the Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Society, and even the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which I am an original cosponsor of their bill. They are embarrassed with this bill because it points out that we have missed the mark here in Washington, D.C. All my bill asks, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we send a clear message to my children, to your children, that there are certain behaviors that are not appropriate for children. One is the purchase and the consumption and the possession of alcohol. Another is the purchase, the consumption and the possession of tobacco. And I think all of us should forget about the embarrassment and move forward to protect our children. Mr. Chairman, we need to send a very clear message that this Congress feels it is inappropriate for underage children to smoke, to possess tobacco, and that only adults should participate in that behavior not just in Virginia and Maryland, but also here in Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital. I think this will help to send a message, a clear message, to all the legislatures that have overlooked this little detail, and they will do what other legislatures are doing now, and that is passing laws to send a clear message that, children, drinking is wrong for minors and so is smoking. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. and Mrs. James Mellos, a couple in my district whose retirement symbolizes the end of an era. Since May of 1927, the Mellos family has owned and operated the Palomar Market Liquor & Grocery store located at 1802 W. Washington Street in San Diego, California, Mr. James D. Mellos, his brother Mr. Louis Mellos, and his cousin Mr. George Antonopoulos, started this business which the family has successfully owned and operated for 71 years--through the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the Cold War. According to the Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Palomar Market has the unique recognition of holding the oldest off-sale liquor license in the State of California. Mr. James Mellos, Jr. worked at Palomar Market since he was nine years old, continuing a family tradition of serving the Mission Hills Community which lasted over four decades. In addition to their success at business, James and Hellen Mellos raised three wonderful children. Their oldest son, James D. Mellos, III, has become a successful attorney and has opened up his own law office in Mission Hills. Their middle child, Peter L. Mellos, is completing his masters in Forensic Science and is anticipating attending law school with the goal of working in the San Diego District Attorney's office. Their youngest child, Stella K. Mellos, is currently a hard-working successful paralegal for the downtown San Diego Law Firm of Jeffrey E. Estes & Associates. Like her brothers, she plans to attend law school and become a practicing attorney in San Diego. Since their children all found success in the field of law, Mr. and Mrs. Mellos decided to sell their store upon retirement and start new traditions. After much searching, Mr. and Mrs. Mellos found another family to take over the business who will continue the Mellos traditions of hard work and excellent service. On Monday, July 6, 1998, the Palomar Market opened under new ownership, bringing the era of the Mellos family business to a bittersweet end. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hereby declare that hereafter, July 6th will be know to San Diegans as ``Palomar Market Day'' to commemorate this great piece of San Diego's history.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise regretfully in opposition to this amendment. I do not rise in opposition to the intention and the spirit of the amendment. I think that, quite appropriately, the gentlewoman from California pointed out that qualified voters should vote. I think that the gentleman from California who spoke in opposition to this motion probably made his point clear, by saying that we want people to vote. We want people to be able to vote. We want people to be able to register to vote. In all fairness, I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that citizens should be able to vote. Qualified citizens, not just any person. I strongly support the intention of the gentleman's amendment. I think that, sadly, as somebody who was a county supervisor and supervised the electoral process for over 2.7 million people, that too often we talk about quantity, and not the quality of the process. The fact is that the integrity of our electoral process needs to be defended. But tonight I must speak in opposition to this special vehicle, which is asking Shays-Meehan to carry this burden, while trying to keep enough votes together to be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. There are people on both sides of the aisle who will use this as an excuse to oppose our campaign finance reform, Shays-Meenhan, if we at this point require the system to require people to basically prove that they are qualified voters, that they are over 18, that they are a citizen of the United States. I strongly support the intention that the gentleman is trying to make with his amendment. It is just that the vehicle, at this time, will kill campaign finance reform, because there are people in this Congress who will adamantly kill any piece of campaign finance legislation, no matter how good it is, if it means that we will address this problem of unqualified people being able to register and vote. So I sadly have to oppose this, and I would ask the gentleman to join with those of us on both sides of the aisle that believe that the integrity of finance campaign reform and the integrity of our electoral process needs to be finally addressed one way or the other. Campaign finance reform. We are trying to do it with this bill. I hope that, at the appropriate time in the future, Democrats will come across the aisle and join us in supporting the gentleman's thoughtful effort to ensure for the integrity of the electoral vote.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for this important piece of legislation. As my colleagues know, we asked the gentleman to take on this cause, and let me just say I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from California for the cooperative effort for those who need the implants and the biomaterials here, that we are talking about here today. And let me just say I would like to sort of congratulate my colleagues in the name of Titus, the young man who depends on shunts to be able to stay alive every day and was basically concerned that because of liability and the problems of liability, the biomaterials that make those shunts to keep him alive could be restricted from his position so that he could continue the happy life and the very active life. If my colleagues met Titus, they would know what I mean. He is one of my constituents, is a young man that I look forward to watching him grow up and become prosperous, and with this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the name of Titus and for all the children and all the citizens in America that will be served by those biomaterials that might have been denied to people who desperately need them for life and limb.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let us be very frank about this. The people that oppose the Texas compact traditionally oppose all of the low-level radiation compacts. Let us remember that 20, 30 years ago this material was going into landfills across this country. Those who oppose the compacts and oppose siting these facilities have to ask themselves, it is easy to attack a location, an option, but it is awful hard to get a better option. I would just ask those who oppose this compact or any other compact to remember that the Federal Government mandated this approach, legislated this approach, and now there are those in the Federal Government that would love to obstruct this approach. I just ask those that do not like the options that are being proposed by this compact, what is your alternative? To continue to leave this waste stream in Dallas, in Houston, in Galveston, in the hospitals and the research facilities in Texas and in other States? What is your option of what do we do with this low- level waste stream? This is the Federal mandated option that we placed on States. This is better than having the waste stream in our neighborhoods, next to our facilities, where our children are playing, where our grandparents are staying. So when you talk about this and say, is this the proper site, let me challenge you by saying, is the option better? Is it better to leave the waste stream where it is now, backing up and piling up in our neighborhoods? I would just ask that you consider the fact there may be people concerned about this site and about this compact, but go into your communities and ask your planning groups and your community groups and your families about do they want this waste stream left in their neighborhoods where it is now? The big untold story here is the fact that where this waste stream is and where it would be if it was not sited appropriately. This is the safest, most logical strategy. This is a strategy we decided on decades ago, and it is one that we should continue with. It is a rational strategy. Let us not have this waste in our neighborhoods. Let us have it in a safe facility.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).