Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. We are looking forward to Wednesday or Thursday.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we have concluded legislative business for this week. There will be no votes tomorrow, Friday, April 23. However, I would like to remind Members that there is a ceremony in the Capitol tomorrow celebrating the 50th anniversary of NATO and all Members are invited. Of course, we will be releasing our official schedule this afternoon, but I would like to take this opportunity to outline next week's agenda. The House will meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, April 26, for pro forma, but no legislative business will be held and no votes will be held on that day. On Tuesday, April 27, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to all Members' offices. Members should note that we expect votes after 2 p.m. on Tuesday. On Wednesday, April 28 and Thursday April 29, the House will take up H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act; H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999; and a motion to go to conference on H.R. 4, the Missile Defense Act. Members should also be advised that there may be action next week on the War Powers Resolution introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the ranking members and the chairmen for their work on this bill. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, this bill has had a lot of people who have worked on it for a long time who are not here today. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) worked hard with me at trying to figure out how to get to this point to where we can get the Federal Government working with the States, and now with H.R. 999 we will be able to do something that, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) pointed out, is getting the information to the local community so that they are empowered to know there is a problem, which is the first and most critical step of knowing how to respond to it. I would say in closing, personally, back in 1970 on the first Earth Day, I was a high school senior and I wore the green and blue armbands, and I was protesting the pollution of my beaches in south San Diego. Sad to say, almost 30 years later, our beaches are still polluted by the Republic of Mexico, and that is something that we need to and are working to address. But this bill does something that we said back in 1970, and it was a big battle cry that we had in the environmental movement, ``Think globally but act locally.'' This bill empowers the local community to have the local information so that they can address their problems in their neighborhood, in their community, and have the Federal Government as an ally in the local effort to act locally, to be able to take care of the global problem. I thank this body, and I thank the chairmen and the ranking members for the chance to be able to bring this bill up for action.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our full committee chairman, along with our ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), for all the help. Their bipartisan effort has really shown that we cannot only protect the environment, but we can do it together. This bill is a good example of not only talking about working together here in Congress to help the public and to protect the public's health, but actually having States and counties and health officials and the EPA and the Federal Government all working together for this goal. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and many others for their encouragement and their help in bringing this together. I want to really thank the people that helped bring this bill to reality because so often our good intentions here in Congress do not reflect the reality out in mainstream America, and out in the waters of our Nation. I want to thank the San Diego County Environmental Health Department and the Surfrider Foundation, specifically, Chris Gonaver of the County of San Diego, and Gary Sirota and Darryl Hatheway of the Surfrider Foundation for their instrumental work on the development of this public health measure. Additionally, I want to join the chairman in thanking the San Diego County Medical Association for its support, the Center for Marine Conservation, and specifically, the American Oceans Campaign, led by Ted Danson, whose son is also a surfer. I want to thank them for their critical help on this item. Madam Speaker, roughly 60 percent of Americans live within 30 miles of a coastline. I happen to have had the privilege of growing up a block from the beach and I live nine blocks from the beach now, and sometimes we wonder, we might as well live in Kansas when we are that far away from the ocean! But this bill, the Beach Environment Awareness Cleanup and Health Act of 1999, is a bill that I think all of us that use the beaches of America will recognize has been a long time in coming. We all know about and we can talk about the problems that affect people with certain health aspects for long-term exposure. We worry about what happens to our children if they live 20 years next to a hazardous waste dump. We are worried about our senior citizens if they drink certain water for over 40 years. This bill is addressing something that we have overlooked, and that is the fact that our children and our families can enter coastal waters on one day, for one moment, and contract diseases such as hepatitis, encephalitis, and different related illnesses related to pathogens. I have had surfers in my district actually get inner brain infections and almost die from one exposure. These are things that we need to address. I want to point out that H.R. 999 is really aimed not at finding fault, but at finding answers. It is a way to include, first of all, our public health directors in the formation of criteria for this country, not from Washington on down, but from America's communities on up, and have the Federal Government work as a partner in the formation of the criteria to protect our families' health. Also, H.R. 999 understands and recognizes the unique differences in these regions. When I come back to this coast and see these coastal waters and surf with my children, it is totally different than what we see in the West Coast. H.R. 999 has the type of flexibility that we have only talked about for so long, that allows the local communities to address their local environmental concerns and do that with the aid of the Federal Government, rather than what we have seen so often, sadly, where we have seen local conflict with the Federal strategies. The bill requires the development of updated criteria, in cooperation with public health agencies. It does not require the local States to take action if they choose not to. It does require the EPA to address the public health problems with this issue in every region, but in cooperation if the local communities want it. H.R. 999 creates a uniform level of protection, so that when any parent goes to any beach that is being used anywhere in the United States, that parent can feel with some level of confidence that the water that their children is entering is safe to have contact with. That situation does not exist now. Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for H.R. 999, not just for those of us who use the water, and not just for those of us who like to look at the water. I would ask that H.R. 999 also be passed because it is the beginning of a new way to fulfill our responsibilities, not just to the environment but to our citizens and to ourselves. The cooperative effort of H.R. 999, Democrats and Republicans, local and Federal and State people all working together, really shows that to care for the environment, we must care about the community and every community, not just Washington, D.C. H.R. 999 sets an example to protect the public health, and do it in a fair and reasonable and effective way. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not find excuses to oppose this bill. Look into the future and see what this bill can do for our public health and for our processes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 999, the BEACH bill. I have some supporting material here, which I would ask to be included in the record along with my statement. I want to first thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Shuster, and the chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Boehlert, for all their hard work, and that of their staffs, on this bill, and for making this important public health issue a priority. The ranking members on the committee, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Borski, have worked with them hand in hand to help advance and strengthen this bill, and their bipartisan collaboration has been key to the bill's progress. I also want to acknowledge and thank all my colleagues that have rolled up their sleeves and worked with me on the BEACH bill, both this year and in years past. I am also very grateful for the input and assistance that I received during the drafting of this bill, and in the subsequent discussions on its progress, from the county of San Diego's Department of Environmental Health Services, which administers one of the best ocean testing programs in the world, and from the Surfrider Foundation, which has also been instrumental in helping to improve public education on water quality issues. Input from local health agencies and from organizations like Surfrider have been key in identifying existing problems and shortcomings which make this bill so essential. In particular, Mr. Chairman, Chris Gonaver at the County's Environmental Health Department and Gary Sirota of the Surfrider Foundation have provided critical advice and input to me and my office on this bill since its inception, and deserve a great deal of credit for its development. I would also like to thank the San Diego County Medical Society for taking an advocacy role on this issue by endorsing H.R. 999, and the American Oceans Campaign and the Center for Marine Conservation for their continuing support and efforts in helping to move this bill along. This is an exceptional range of support--public health officials, medical professionals, and the environmental community--and it further underscores both the merits of and need for H.R. 999. This bill, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of significant importance not only to myself and my San Diego district, but to all Americans who live near or love visiting our coastal areas. As someone who has grown up and lived in and near the ocean all his life, surfing, swimming, and sailing in it, it is quite simply an integral part of my life. Most importantly, as a father of five children who share my passion for the sea, I want nothing more than for them to be able to spend their lives enjoying it in a clean, safe, and health risk-free environment. I was with this in mind that I worked closely with my colleague from New Jersey in the 105th Congress to develop a ``precursor'' of this legislation, then H.R. 2094, as a means to work toward establishing reasonable national criteria for coastal water quality. While certain parts of the United States (led by my hometown of San Diego) have already developed and implemented comprehensive and progressive coastal testing and monitoring programs at both the state and local level, there are needs which up to this point have not been met, and problems which have not been fully addressed. This lack of consistency in the levels of protection provided by such monitoring and notification nationwide puts at risk beachgoers from coast to coast. Roughly 60 percent of all Americans live within 30 miles of a coast, and far too often, surfers, swimmers, and others who enjoy using the water serve as inadvertent ``canaries in the coal mine''. These are the people, particularly children, who are susceptible to and develop the ear, nose, and throat infections, fevers, and respiratory or stomach ailments that can and do occur as a result contact with pathogen- contaminated water. There is a clear need, both for people who live on the coastlines in places like San Diego and Rehobeth Beach and surf or swim every day, and for people who live inland and bring their families to the shore once or twice a year, to be able to understand and be provided with information as to whether the water is safe for them to enjoy before they enter it. This is where consistency in the levels of protection provided by monitoring and notification at coastal areas is necessary. This is the basic focus of H.R. 999--to be a first step towards identifying where problems exist and where there is a need for monitoring, recognizing the science and capacity we have to respond to them, and providing the tools, incentives, and flexibility to states and communities that they need to create programs and implement them appropriately. Most importantly, the bill provides the ability to develop and administer these programs in a ``bottoms up'' fashion, while moving away from outdated ``command and control'' strategies which may have served us well in the past, but are too cumbersome and unwieldy to provide useful solutions to today's challenges. The en bloc amendment which will be offered shortly will be carefully explained, but I'd like to speak to one of the seemingly minor aspects of the amendment. In the short title of the bill, ``assessment'' is changed to ``awareness''. While this may seem insignificant, I wanted to make this change at this time to help underscore the entire point of the bill. Increased awareness is what this bill seeks to achieve, starting at the community level, and is what will lead to better protection of the public health and the environment at our coastal recreational water, both within and without the scope of H.R. 999. The whole concept of this bill is to encourage nationwide monitoring of coastal recreation waters where it is needed to protect the public health, and public notification of the results--but from the community on up, not the top down. By empowering local health officials and communities to work directly with state and federal officials, H.R. 999 provides the opportunity and incentive to develop monitoring plans that will protect public safety on a regional or beach by beach basis. It is important to recognize that H.R. 999 is not an expansion of regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act--it provides no new regulatory authority to any federal agency, and the bill language and accompanying congressional intent in the Committee report makes it clear that it may not be interpreted to do so. Its scope is limited to the monitoring of coastal recreation waters for pathogens or their indicators which are harmful to public health; it does not provide for source identification or regulation (specifically, at present non-point sources are not regulated under the Clean Water Act, and H.R. 999 does not change that). H.R. 999 creates no unfunded mandates. States or local governments which may already have a robust monitoring program in place, as in Florida, California, or New Jersey--are not required to submit or develop a ``new'' program under this bill. The intent of the bill is not to lead to ``dual monitoring'' by the EPA in areas where appropriate monitoring is already taking place; it is to serve to encourage the development of monitoring programs in areas where none exist and where there is a need to protect the public health. Further, the updating and review of science-based criteria which will occur under the bill will be an asset to both new and existing monitoring programs, and lead to better levels of protection across the board. The bill clarifies that state criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators must be at least as protective of human health as previously published EPA criteria, which date back almost 14 years to 1986, and the incorporation of these new or revised criteria into state programs will also help to ensure that the scientific information on which the criteria themselves and individuals programs are based is kept current. EPA is required under the bill to develop these criteria through a public process, which includes collaboration with appropriate local, state, and federal officials. This will include criteria for determining what areas of coastal recreation waters do not need to be monitored to protect the public health. The bill does not require, nor does it expect, that monitoring and notification programs will be the same in all states for all recreation waters where it is needed. Here is where the flexibility of the bill is essential, to allow for specific needs to be addressed on a regional basis. Again, the goal of H.R. 999 is to create uniform levels of protection, not uniform monitoring programs, as might have been the case under previous incarnations of this bill. The information database which will be established under the bill is an important asset to maintaining and improving measures for protecting the public health at coastal recreation waters, and pains have been taken to ensure that the databases will be used effectively for that specific purpose. I should clarify at this point that such a database was considered an essential tool for public health purposes by both my County Department of Environmental Health and by the Surfrider Foundation, and I think the dialogue which we have had in developing H.R. 999 has reinforced this view. The bill specifies that this database will consist only of information on exceedances of water quality standards for pathogens that are harmful to human health, not to sources of causes. To address concerns which were expressed over potential misuse of the databases, the bill language was strengthened to clarify that only information on water quality standard exceedances for pathogens or pathogen indicators, from reliable water quality monitoring programs, may be included in the database. Access to important scientific information is what is intended and will be derived from the development and use of this database. In sum, this is very much an incentive-based process; the bill provided that availability of federal grant funding to state and/or local governments which have established or are encouraged to establish an adequate monitoring program. The list which H.R. 999 requires to be maintained of area which do and do not have monitoring programs in place will serve as an additional incentive to state and local governments to develop and implement a monitoring program which best meets their own specific regional needs. It will also demonstrate to both residents and tourists alike that there is a system in place to make sure coastal recreation waters in question are safe and protective of human health, and give them a means by which they can understand and be aware of water conditions in a given area, and make their own decisions as a result. By providing financial and public incentives rather than the threat of punitive action, H.R. 999 creates a fair process by which to establish means to effectively monitor coastal waters, and to make the public aware of those results and conditions. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, thank you again for this opportunity and your support. Together we can make sure that the American people, whether they live on the coast or in the heartland, are never again accidental ``canaries in a coal mine'' at our nation's beaches. Let's pass H.R. 999 today, and see it signed into law this year. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following material: Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 999--Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999 Summary: H.R. 999 would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require states to adopt water quality criteria for coastal recreation waters consistent with those developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation waters (beaches). The bill would authorize EPA to provide grants to states of $30 million annually over the 2000-2004 period to implement programs to monitor the quality of coastal waters and to notify the public of any conditions where beach water does not meet the established standards. In addition, the legislation would require EPA to issue new water quality criteria for recreational coastal areas based on studies of potential human health risks in these areas, make available to the public a database of the water quality at coastal recreational areas, and report to the Congress on the efforts under this program. Becuse the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 999 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 999 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, today is April 15. I would like to take this time to congratulate my tax accountant, my wife Karen, who has gone through the last few months having to confront taxpayer after taxpayer. I have to apologize to Karen, her staff and every tax consultant in America, and yes, every taxpayer in America that we have put them through what we have done in the last few months. Now, I keep hearing from Members of Congress about how the taxes only affect the rich and how the rich need to pay more and that every time a tax increase goes through, it is only on the rich. Let me tell my colleagues something. Those of us who represent the working class people of the United States and people that work in businesses like my wife, that have no client, not one client who makes over $100,000 a year, know the great lie that comes out of these chambers and out of this Capitol about ``The rich are going to be taxed, but don't worry, working class, you'll be held harmless.'' The fact is, Mr. Speaker, is that our Tax Code needs to have a supermajority to control the abuses of the majority. That is what the Constitution is about, to protect the individual from the confiscation of their property by the Congress of the United States. It should be an extraordinary issue. In California, where 32 million people live, the most progressive State of this Union, we have had for decades the fact that we have addressed the issue; there should be a supermajority before government goes in and confiscates private property in the form of taxes. Now, the people in California, Mr. Speaker, have the right of initiative. They can sign petitions, get it on the ballot and force it on the legislature to give them the protection of a supermajority when it comes time to confiscate their assets in taxes. The people of the United States do not have that right under our Constitution. That responsibility lies with this body, to initiate a constitutional amendment to make sure we do not abuse those actions like we have in the past. I stand in favor of the constitutional amendment. I apologize to the taxpayers and thank the gentleman from Florida for this action.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 15 will designate as wilderness area 18,500 acres of Otay Mountain, a rugged area along the U.S.-Mexico border in southern San Diego County. It is a stunning place, where people can still go and see how the neighborhood looked when Father Serra entered California over 200 years ago. H.R. 15 is a bipartisan consensus effort made possible by strong support from many different interest groups in an effort to work together. Both local, Federal and State agencies were involved, including the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, the Endangered Habitats League, the California Department of Forestry, the Border Patrol, the Departments of Justice and Interior, and Secretary Babbitt, who toured the area himself and addressed it in December. I want to specifically thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, for their strong support of H.R. 15. I also wish to sincerely thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, whose strong support of the Otay Mountain wilderness area and this legislation has been critical to its success. I look forward to working with her on the bill as it moves to the Senate. The unique thing, Mr. Speaker, about H.R. 15 is it serves as an example of how we can dovetail two apparently conflicting strategies of State and Federal agencies and make them work together in a cooperative purpose. H.R. 15 gives the Border Patrol the continuing ability to conduct its essential law enforcement mission along the border in this region. This increased enforcement has proven to be a positive if not essential part of preserving the wildlife habitat and the unique natural fauna in this area. The Border Patrol's increased level of interdictions in this area has resulted in a lessening of the impact on the Otay Mountain itself, fewer illegal trails, trash piles, human waste and campfires which have caused innumerable damage to the area. This includes wildfires that have been purposely set by smugglers as diversionary tactics while they smuggled drugs and illegal aliens into the area. I have spoken directly with Bill Veale, the regional director of the Border Patrol in this region, and he strongly supports this bill. He assures me that the important task that he has been vested with will continue to be effective, especially with H.R. 15 designation. Access to Otay Mountain by the Border Patrol, the California Department of Forestry and the public will not be diminished by H.R. 15. It will be guaranteed. The two main truck trails on Otay Mountain are completely excluded, called cherrystemmed, from the wilderness area, and other jeep trails and spur roads are not included within the wilderness boundary of H.R. 15. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 15 preserves a unique and rugged area of San Diego as wilderness for future generations to enjoy, and specifically ensures that both critical law enforcement activities and public access will continue in the region. It is my hope that this bill will serve as a blueprint for future situations where resource management and law enforcement activities must coexist and hopefully do so in a way that benefits all involved. Mr. Speaker, this bill can be the blueprint for not only law enforcement and habitat preservation but for this Congress, that we can protect the public and protect the wildlife resources of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 15. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great satisfaction to rise in strong support of H.R. 15, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999. H.R. 15 will designate as wilderness roughly 18,500 acres of the Otay Mountain region, in southern San Diego County along the U.S.-Mexico border. This is a rugged and stunning place, where people can still go to experience a sense of what this area looked like when Father Junipero Serra first explored it more than two hundred years ago. H.R. 15 is a common-sense and bipartisan consensus effort, which was built from the ground level up, involving elected officials, agencies, and public interest stakeholders at the local, state and federal level. As a result of working together to address the needs and concerns of all participants, I am happy to be able to tell my colleagues that the broad support for H.R. 15 runs the gamut--from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Endangered Habitats League (a respected local conservation organization), to the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and the Border Patrol, to the Departments of Justice and the Interior, including Secretary Babbitt. I want to particularly thank Chairman Jim Hansen and Chairman Don Young, along with all my colleagues on the Resources Committee, for all their assistance to date on this legislation and their willingness to make it a priority. I am also grateful to my California colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her support of this legislation. In the last several years, Senator Feinstein has played a key role in facilitating access by the Border Patrol to Otay Mountain, which has resulted in dramatic reductions in illegal activity in this border region. She deserves a great deal of credit for the progress which has been achieved there to date, and I look forward to working with her as this legislation moves through the Senate. In addition to protecting as wilderness a particularly unique and rugged area of San Diego County, H.R. 15 is important for the constructive precedent I hope it can set for future resource conservation and land management policy. By working together at all levels, the broad coalition of support for H.R. 15 has demonstrated that wilderness designation is not inherently incompatible with essential law enforcement activities in the same region, and vice versa. Where it is appropriate, we should take these opportunities to demonstrate that different agency missions or operating strategies can be made to complement each other, rather than to exist completely independently from one another, or worse, in conflict. We have already seen the positive environmental and enforcement results of the Border Patrol's increased access to Otay Mountain and adjoining areas near the border. The reductions in illegal smuggling and immigration there have directly translated into a lessened impact on the resource itself, such as fewer illicit trails beaten through sensitive habitat, less discarded trash and human waste, and greatly lessened risk of damage from warming or diversionary fires set by smugglers, such as devastated much of the mountain several years ago. H.R. 15 will ensure that Border Patrol's access to this region will continue unhindered, with continued resulting benefit to both law enforcement and environmental protection concerns. In addition to facilitating increased and continued law enforcement and resource protection for Otay Mountain, the ability of the general public to enjoy this beautiful region is maintained. When I first introduced this legislation, several of my colleagues expressed to me their strong interest in maintaining public access, and as this has also been a high priority of mine, H.R. 15 does so. The two existing access roads on Otay Mountain (the Otay Truck trail and the Minnewawa Truck trail) have been ``cherrystemmed'' from the wilderness boundaries, to ensure that both the Border Patrol and the CDF will be able to continue their critical law enforcement and fire suppression activities in the region under H.R. 15, and that the history of access by the public to this tremendous resource will continue. Other roads in the vicinity, specifically the Otay Mountain Pack trail and the East and West Spur roads, are not included within the wilderness boundaries and so are not impacted by this legislation. There may be other regions of extraordinary natural beauty elsewhere in our country, perhaps even in other border regions, where the critical individual missions of various state or federal law enforcement agencies have in the past been (or have been perceived to be) operating at ``cross purposes'' with equally important missions of resource conservation or environmental protection. It is my hope that H.R. 15 can serve as a blueprint for how a mutually beneficial working relationship can be established among such agencies, in order to best address the needs of a given region. I thank my colleagues for their support of this bipartisan bill, and would issue an open tour invitation for any of you that might like to visit this beautiful and rugged jewel of San Diego. San Diego County Board of Supervisors, San Diego, CA, February 17, 1999. To: Board of Supervisors Subject: Resolution supporting wilderness area designation for Otay Mountain Summary Congressman Brian Bilbray has submitted H.R. 15, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999, to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Resources. Otay Mountain possesses critically important natural resources that are unique to the Nation. A wilderness designation would provide long-term protection of this unique ecosystem while creating a comprehensive management framework which will enable the U.S. Border Patrol and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to improve public safety in the region. Recommendation: Supervisor Jacob Adopt the attached resolution supporting the Otay Wilderness Act of 1999. Fiscal impact None. Background Otay Mountain has long been recognized as a unique ecosystem. The mountain is composed of rock with unusual properties that benefit plant growth. As a result, the mountain supports a large number of endangered and sensitive species. Otay Mountain is also home to the world's largest strand of rare Tecate Cypress. Designation of 18,500 acres on Otay Mountain as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System will ensure long-term protection of valuable natural resources and wildlife and opportunities for public recreation will be established. Furthermore, as this area has experienced extensive resource damage as a result of illegal immigrant activity and wildfires, designation as a Wilderness Area will help in coordinating and improving public safety. Support of H.R. 15 authored by Congress Brian Bilbray would be consistent with San Diego County's efforts to protect threatened flora and fauna and continue its role as the Nation's leader in habitat planning. Respectfully Submitted, Dianne Jacob, Supervisor, Second District.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, as somebody who represents San Diego which actually is one of the largest if not the largest military complex in the world, we always think about the fact that since the sacking and burning of Washington in 1814, Americans have basically perceived themselves as being insulated from attack from across the ocean. The trouble right now is that we sort of make that assumption that our Capitol is safe. In fact I think, more importantly, we would like to make the assumption that our wives and our children and our families back at home are safe from foreign aggression. The sad fact about it is that is not true. And I will just ask anybody if they want to think that this is not an important issue to do as I was able to do. Talk to the parents who lived in Tel Aviv at the time the scuds were coming into Tel Aviv in Israel, and talk to those parents about the difference of being soldiers in the field as opposed to being parents at home and the fear of their children having missiles rained down on them. That really made an impression on me and really changed my attitude a lot of ways about missile defense capabilities. Now, I have got to say that when I came here a few years ago to Washington, I was really shocked, in fact dumbfounded, that there were people here in Congress who sat on a certain side of the aisle that would vote for a missile defense system if that missile defense system would defend another country. But at the same time there would be a motion made by somebody on the Republican side, and I hate to do this but it tended to draw along partisan lines, if somebody proposed that the missile defense systems that we were developing would be used to defend our own children or our own families, they voted against that funding. I just shook my head. I have to say this as somebody who believes in rights and responsibilities, that if the taxpayers of the United States are going to bear the responsibility of developing missile defense systems, how in the world can those who claim to represent those taxpayers not allow that defense system to defend those taxpayers? It is astonishing how shortsighted people can be. For a long time, people did not think about the fact that our troops could have missiles rain down on them when they were in a tactical situation. All at once, now it is universally accepted by Democrat, Republican, Independent, left and right, that a theater defense system is not only appropriate, it is essential if we are going to defend our troops in the field. What is sad is, are we going to wait until the missiles land in our neighborhood before the same enlightenment applies for defending our sovereign territory here in North America? What is really scary is, what does it take to learn. I think that maybe what it takes to learn is that a lot of Americans before 1814 thought the Capitol was safe because of our big Atlantic Ocean. After the sacking and burning of this Capitol and this city, there was a lot different attitude about national defense. I hope that we are able to learn from other countries' experiences rather than having to wait for those disasters to actually end up in our own neighborhood. Let me point out, I will say this clearly, and I think any Member of Congress will say this, the only thing worse than seeing our Capitol destroyed would be watching our neighborhoods at home destroyed. We have a responsibility to defend that and to add that. I do not think it is something that is pie in the sky. I do not think it is something that is outside. I think we saw what American ingenuity did with a glorified P.C. computer and a missile defense system that was never meant to be a missile defense system. It was supposed to go after airplanes. But Americans and American ingenuity can conquer this problem and defend our neighborhoods. I think we have to have the trust and commitment to get the job done. We spend billions and billions to go all over the world to protect everybody else's neighborhood. Doggone it, we have the responsibility to do the same for our own.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the delegation from Colorado. Just an observation: The air in Colorado may be thin, but its representation in Congress is very strong.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I think most of us prefer not to be here, but the Constitution obligates us to be here, and the Constitution also directs what we can do while we are here. As pointed out by Hamilton in 66 Paper, we do not have the right to be punitive. Censure is a punitive action. We have the right and the responsibility to refer this item to the Senate for their judgment. Now I know there are those who do not like to say that we have jurisdiction here, but the fact is, as Ms. Jordan pointed out in 1974, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any Member here to assert that a Member is voting to remove the President for impeachment and that it does not give us the jurisdiction to be able to refer to the Constitution, which says clearly that we have the responsibility to judge; is there enough evidence to consider impeachment and that punishment not be rendered here in a censure in the House of Representatives but only, only in the Senate? That is our responsibility. The President has to live by the Constitution, and so do we as a body, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to address the body at this time, but a colleague just impugned the moderates who have decided not to vote their way, as if we are somehow being pressured. I would challenge anyone on this floor to name the moderates who have come to you and said, we have been pressured. I, for one, and my colleagues I have spoken to have said this is a vote of conscience and respect our vote of conscience as much as you are asking us to respect yours. I think it is outrageous that my colleagues on the other side use a political maneuver to impugn our integrity just because they do not agree with the consideration that we have given.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great political risk that I speak here today. With the Speaker and the head of the NRCC coming from Georgia, I would like to rise today to congratulate the San Diego Padres for winning the National League championship in Atlanta. I would like to congratulate the Padres owner John Morris, president Larry Lucchino, manager Bruce Bochy and the entire team from the San Diego Padres. I would also like to congratulate the Padre fans. When you look to San Diego you usually think of beaches, beautiful zoos, bays and also Qualcomm Stadium. Mr. Speaker, my constituents celebrated last night in the 49th District and sadly I was not there to join them. But today I would like to point out that their celebration is something that we can all join in. In light of the fact that Congress will be out, though, Mr. Speaker, when the Padres win the World Series, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their pending victories. Go Padres.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am from San Diego County, which is south of southern California. I want to make that quite clear. My colleague from Huntington Beach, who is the other half of the Surfing Caucus, has pointed out again and again that Mr. Riggs is somebody, in the terminology of an old advertisement, who has always been able to ``take a licking and keep on ticking.'' I think that the fact of the ability for him to take hits from people who cannot stand to hear the truth I think is one of the things we have always appreciated about him. Let me say one thing. Somebody brought up the fact that Frank comes from a background of getting a good education, getting the facts, and being able to speak the facts. It is something that some people are not very comfortable with. Frankly, there are those who are involved in the environmental movement who do not want to approach the environmental issues as science. It is almost as if people have lost old religion and have now tried to make environmental causes their new religion. Those of us that have worked on real environmental problems, like myself, are so frustrated with people that do not realize that we not only have a right, but we have a responsibility to keep our minds open and get the facts and approach environmental strategies as a science. It is not a theology. Frankly, there are those who have attacked Frank as a heretic because he is not willing to accept the theology of certain groups and certain people who claim to be wanting to help the environment. I think that Frank has been less fortunate, but the environment has been better because Frank has been willing to stand up and say: Science first, foremost, and always; that one cannot be an environmentalist if they do not put science first and take prejudice and preconceived ideas away. I did not come here to praise Frank Riggs or to honor Frank Riggs. I want to say there is something that we do not do enough of here. I want to honor the people that really made it possible for Frank Riggs to be here. And I am not just saying the voters. I want to honor an 11-year- old little girl who does not have her daddy home every night because he is here on the House floor. Sarah Riggs is the type of person that we do not talk enough about. The reason why Mr. Riggs is willing to come here and serve and do without fiscal and family security that a lot of businesspeople out there have is because he cares about his daughter's future. And Sarah Riggs is somebody that we should always remember. I hope every Member of this Congress always remembers that there are those that make it possible for us to serve. It is Sarah Riggs, Cathy Riggs, Matthew Riggs that are out there without a father, without a mother, because they are here serving and doing the people's business. And I think that too often, the image that people see on C-SPAN or they see in the paper is of a two-dimensional figure. Of Frank Riggs, the Congressman, the politician, but not the Frank Riggs the father, the husband. And when we do that, when we only see the two-dimensional, we deny the real heroes and the heroines in this whole thing. That is the Sarah Riggses and the Cathy Riggses and the Matthews that do without and do so much more than anybody could ever expect them to do, because their father is engaged in the business of this country. Mr. Speaker, I want to say sincerely to Sarah Riggs, and sincerely to all of the young girls out there, and the sons and the wives who sacrifice and fill in the huge hole that is there because their parents are off taking care of business in Congress, I want to thank them, all the Sarah Riggses out there, for the contribution they have made for the betterment of this country. I want to thank the Sarahs for being willing to do what a lot of little children would never want to do, and that is not have their daddy or mother around. And so I am not here to honor Mr. Riggs; I am here to honor Sarah Riggs for all her contributions. And I would like to say, ``Thank you very much, Sarah, for allowing us to have your daddy for a while here on the House floor. It has been a privilege to serve you. It has been a privilege to work with your daddy. And I hope in the future, we will be able to continue to see the kind of contributions that your father has made to the American people and the people of California.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to San Diego Magazine on their 50th anniversary by joining the residents of San Diego in proclaiming October 16th ``San Diego Magazine Day.'' The San Diego publication has earned a reputation for remaining on the forefront of issues which are important to San Diegans. It is also known for articles which are always intelligently written, witty, and never cynical or disparaging. Throughout the years, the magazine has remained a source of unbiased and comprehensive coverage of local news and perspectives for its readers. Since its debut in 1948, San Diego Magazine has followed matters which are still relevant today such as: the improvement of the downtown library; the San Diego airport which was designed to grow to meet the needs of the city; the need for an efficient public transportation system, and the need for better city planning in Mission Valley. In the last two decades, the magazine has also published stories addressing San Diego's exponential growth as a major business market, technology center, and tourist destination. Fifty years of striving for excellence has paid off for San Diego Magazine. Its recent sweep of 17 Press Club Awards for high accomplishment in journalism, special publications, and art direction has made it a standard upon which many other regional magazines are modeling their publications. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I extend my highest congratulations to San Diego Magazine on their Golden Anniversary. We look forward to many more years of forward-thinking and entertaining articles which beautifully reflect the character of the San Diego area.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague as somebody who owns a tax business in a working class neighborhood where not one client makes over $100,000, I think it is fair to know that tax reductions for the working class people in this country are coming in the next few years, mostly because bipartisan negotiation put off a lot of those reductions. So I do not want to get into that. I am just meaning to address the fact that the partisan bickering has gone so far that people that would normally be outraged and would obviously never vote certain ways are voting ways totally contrary to what their personal belief is. It is either that, or they are just so busy fighting that they are not reading what is being proposed and what they are voting on. It is too easy to vote ``no'' against a Republican because he is a Republican, or vote ``yes'' for a Republican because he is a Republican, or vote ``no'' because he is a Democrat. The point I am talking about is this summer, as a father, I was taking my children to our beaches in Imperial Beach, Southern California, and this is what we were greeted with, pollution signs that were closing our beaches and saying to children, you are not allowed to go in this water. I want you to notice that the sign is a bilingual language sign. That is for a good reason. I will explain it later. The point being, was this a corporation that polluted our beaches? Why was Washington not doing something about it? In fact, this pollution problem has gone on for 20 years. The fact is the reason why it was not taken care of is not because it was a corporation, and I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would say they would be outraged if an American business was polluting the beaches so badly that children could not go in the water. The real outrage about this issue was it was not an American business or citizens polluting these waters, it was a foreign government desecrating U.S. territory with sewage in such large magnitudes that it not only affects the environment so you cannot get in the water, but it is also destroying the largest estuary and sanctuary in the Pacific coast. You can say wait a minute, Mr. Bilbray, how could a foreign government actually be polluting and desecrating American soil? Let me just give you a little geography lesson here. The San Diego-Tijuana Tijuana border happens to be cut by the Tijuana River. But, unlike a lot of rivers, the Tijuana River flows north into the United States. Now, that normally would not be a problem, except for the problem that Tijuana has been growing so fast, a lot of it by economic development, that the sewage lines are broken and are flowing into the Tijuana River, flowing through the Tijuana estuary and preserve, and going up into the surf zone for the United States. Now, you understand, these beaches have been impacted for 20 years. Well, the Federal Government has told us, and I will tell you this as a young mayor of 27 years old, I was told by the Carter administration, that is how far this problem has gone, that, Mr. Mayor, we don't want to do anything that may be embarrassing to Mexico, because we are trying to close a deal on oil. I would just ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider the fact that someone said we do not want to confront a major corporation with polluting our water because it might embarrass them. I do not think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would ever stand for their neighborhoods being polluted, and in fact would not support allowing $200 million of taxpayer funds to be wasted or not put to appropriate use. $200 million is going to be spent by the taxpayers of the United States to address this problem, and the problem is continuing. Now, what was the resolution voted against by all but 28 Members of the Democratic Caucus? The resolution said if Mexico does not stop polluting U.S. waters, Congress will take a look at our treaties that relate to Mexico. Can you imagine that being so outrageous, that if the pollution keeps going, we are going to continue to shut it down? That we are just going to ignore it, because we do not want to even look at our treaty obligations? I do not believe my colleagues who voted against this bill read the bill or understood the bill, and I do not believe that all but 28 Members of the Democratic Caucus believes that they should vote no to clean up the sewage problems and the pollution problems along our border. I do believe they got wrapped up in this partisan bickering this week that says if a Republican proposes it, let us vote against it. They voted against it, even though it was against the environment. I would ask every one of them to go back to their constituents and say, citizens, I believe that our treaties with Mexico are more important than the environment; that Washington should continue not to address this issue comprehensively, that Washington should find excuses for Mexico polluting our waters. Mr. Speaker, no one in this House has worked longer and harder at working with Mexico, at taking care of this problem. But we do not solve problems by ignoring them or walking around them. I have dear colleagues on this side that come from my State that I will continue to work on pollution problems with, but because we got so wrapped up in the partisan bickering, we had votes that were totally contrary to the historical facts, and desecrated our environment. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, put the partisanship away. Let us vote for our children, our environment, and quit finding excuses to vote no on everything that comes before this floor.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 516, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a highly emotional and complex matter. In the bright light of historical significance, we must remember that this solemn result will become the standard applied to future presidents, Democrat or Republican. The issue is larger than William Jefferson Clinton. I want to emphasize that contrary to what the media coverage may imply, Congress is not obsessed with this matter. The full House has spent a total of only 4 hours debating this issue. During the same week in which this vote was taken, the House and Senate approved House bill 8, my bill to crack down on commuter vehicles from Mexico which do not meet California vehicle emission standards. The President is expected to sign the bill into law. The House is also considering my legislation to hold Mexico accountable on its agreements to fix sewage infrastructure in Tijuana. Only Judiciary Committee members are concentrating on the impeachment inquiry. The rest of us are working on important budgetary, education, health care, environmental and Social Security issues. As you may know, I have always avoided unnecessary partisanship, and have refrained from criticizing the President's every move during his tenure. He is our elected President and I am obligated by the Constitution to work with him on behalf of my district. It is in the best interest of our nation for Congress to remain focused on the important matter of governing our country, while allowing the members of the House Judiciary Committee the opportunity to perform their duty of reviewing the high volume of documents provided by the Independent Counsel. As I said, Congress has been working effectively on a host of other issues. However, today the full House of Representatives was required to devote its time to considering the resolution from the Judiciary Committee requesting authority to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. This was not a vote to impeach President Clinton. Even a majority of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee wanted to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. The difference between the Republican and Democrat inquiry proposals was in its length and scope. It is interesting to note that even ``The Washington Post'' and ``The New York Times,'' two newspapers whose editorial positions are historically left of center, supported the Republican position on the length and scope of the inquiry. By a vote of 258 to 176 the House decided to proceed with an inquiry. I voted with the majority. Again, most of the Democrats voting against the resolution were not opposed to proceeding with an impeachment inquiry. They simply had legitimate concerns on its length and scope. They were requesting that the inquiry be finished by Thanksgiving of this year. Under the resolution that was approved (House Resolution 581) the inquiry will terminate at the end of this year. Though the President and others in public life deserve some semblance of privacy, like most Americans I am very disappointed in the President's decision to have a relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any workplace including in a hallway near the Oval Office. His lack of judgment was appalling for a man of his age and position. However, the ultimate question before us is not one of sexual conduct. It is whether perjury and obstruction of justice were committed in the magnitude to require impeachment. I am still reviewing the alleged impeachable offenses outlined in the report and by the Judiciary Committee counsels. I am determined to sort out the facts. This is why I supported the resolution to proceed with an inquiry. Second only to a declaration of war, voting on bills of impeachment is Congress' most serious duty. Without a process to determine the facts there would be no reasonable way to reach a decision on such a vote. I, personally, hope that the evidence is not substantial enough to require a constitutionally mandated vote on impeachment. But, it would be irresponsible of me to develop a final position on impeachment until after the Judiciary Committee has completed the impeachment inquiry and all the evidence and rebuttals are on the table. The Independent Counsel has only submitted a preliminary report to Congress because he believes that there was enough evidence in the Lewinsky matter to demonstrate perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice as grounds for impeachment. Congress expects a full report on all of the other allegations, including Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, to be submitted by the Independent Counsel in the coming months. Despite unfortunate initial ``jockeying'' by both sides, I have faith and confidence in my House colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to ultimately perform this constitutional duty in a fair and bipartisan manner. An issue as grave as possible impeachment of the President must not--in appearance or fact--be driven by partisan considerations. We have embarked on a very solemn process and it is necessary for the House to remain dignified by not allowing these proceedings to be taken to a personal or political level. It is imperative that the laws of our land be strictly followed because next to sending our men and women to war, this is our most difficult responsibility. Like other parents, I have had a difficult time explaining this issue to my children. Ultimately, I used it as an object lesson: No matter how embarrassing the truth may be, honesty is always the best policy. The President could have spared the country, his family and himself much pain had he told the complete truth. Lying about an affair should be a private matter between a husband and wife. Unfortunately, the President was under oath in a judicial process. Now the Congress and country is forced to proceed under a constitutional mandate. Congress must remain cognizant of the fact that the result will be a standard to which Presidents from now on will be held. Many letters and e-mails to my office have reflected a lack of understanding of the process. I would like to reiterate that IF, AFTER completion of the impeachment inquiry, the House votes in favor of impeachment, it does not mean the President is automatically removed from office. The process would then move to the Senate where he would be tried, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over the proceedings. It would take a conviction supported by two-thirds (66 out of 100) of the Senate to remove the President from office. Under the Constitution, there is no authority given for the House and Senate to ``censure'' the President. I will do everything in my power to ensure that this matter does not overwhelm the important legislative issues before Congress.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, our bill is the result of hard work between the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Ways and Means. Many of us have heard from constituents, principally veterans and senior citizens who are or may be effected by current health policy which we address and improve in the bill before us today. H.R. 4567 proves, I think, that Members of Congress do listen to the concerns of their constituents and, when appropriate, work to find viable solutions. Several issues are addressed in this legislation. Long ago our Nation made a commitment to care for the brave men and women who fought the battles to keep America free, and these are our Nation's veterans. As a veteran myself and a representative of a congressional district with a large veterans population, I am pleased that we have incorporated a Veterans Medicare Access Improvement Act into H.R. 4567. The Veterans Medicare Access Improvement Act will permit the Medicare program to reimburse the VA for care given to Medicare eligible veterans. The bill provides new health care options to veterans who have previously been shut out of the VA health care system, and it allows the VA to reach out to thousands of underserved veterans. The home health issue is also addressed. Currently one out of every ten Medicare beneficiaries receives close to 80 home health visits per year. BBA 97 sought to address the over utilization of home health services by directing HCFA to create a prospective payment system for the home health industry by October of 1999. Initially HCVA was told to implement an interim payment system which would allow home health agencies to make the transition to the new prospective payment system. HCFA recently informed Congress, unfortunately, that it could not make the October 1, 1999, deadline, thus forcing home health agencies to live with the reimbursement policy which many believe is unfair and will cause numerous facilities to shut down. Through this bill we make the payments to both old and new home health facilities more equitable, thus creating a more even playing field for home health agencies across the country, and most important, we restore assurance to Medicare beneficiaries that they will continue to have home health care services. Our home health reforms build on three simple and yet crucial principles: equity, resolving the arbitrary differences inadvertently created by BBA 97; transitional sensitivity helping home health agencies not only survive the interim payment system, but also place them squarely on the track for the impending prospective payment system and implementability guaranteeing that HCFA can immediately put into effect the reforms we authorize. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare and Veterans Health Improvement Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues. I really want to thank my colleagues who have experience related to the Fronteras pollution problems. Let me just tell my colleagues, this is 20 years that I have been trying to address this issue. The reason why I came to Congress probably more so than anything else is the reputation I have had trying to confront the environmental problems. The fact is that in 1980 I almost went to jail over this issue. Somebody that was willing to stand up, and senior citizens and children stood up and said, enough is enough. Our government has to start addressing this issue. They were frustrated because they were just a working-class community. They did not have a lot of political clout, a lot of influence, but they felt, we are Americans. We have as much right to be defended and protected from environmental problems as wealthy people. Just because the color of our skin may be a little darker, we may be a little poorer, does not mean we do not have environmental rights. Now, I say to my colleague from Texas, I agree with him, and I want to work with him, and I will commit myself to working with him. The fact is that the Clean Water Act should apply just as much for pollution across the border as it does for within the border. But the frustration of a working-class neighborhood that is told by EPA that they will go to jail if they dump their sewage while that same working community is polluted by somebody else, and the EPA does not clean it up. The NAD Bank, there can be more things done with the NAD Bank, and I would really point out that there is agreements by the bank to build projects in the Republic of Mexico 60 miles from the border, which I think ought to be taken care of, the landfill at Punta Penasco and the sewer treatment plant in Ensenada. But the border problems should be given the highest priority, because they are the ones that are really the threat to our growing prosperity. Now, let me get back to this issue. I met with Mexico, articulated to Mexico that this is as much a message to the Federal Government of the United States as it is to Mexico. They understand the concerns. Those who say that we do not want to disturb Mexico or they might take it inappropriately, let me assure my colleague, in 1978, that is exactly what the young neighbor at Imperial Beach was told by the Carter administration, because an oil deal was going through, and they did not want to jeopardize an economic oil deal over just an environmental problem in a working-class neighborhood in the corner of the United States. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone here believes that we should be selling out the environment for any economic deal. Those days are over with. The fact is, we need to send a very clear message, not just to Mexico, but to ourselves, that we will not allow the continuation of the pollution of our environment just because it is convenient to look the other way for economic or political reasons; that every neighborhood in the United States has the right to a clean, healthy environment, and the Federal Government of the United States has as much responsibility to the environment along the border as it does anywhere else in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am not half as concerned as the message this body could send to Mexico. We have already sent it, it has been delivered. What I am concerned about is the message we send to our fellow citizens here in the United States. There is much prejudice against Mexico, and I want to stop that, and I think the one way we stop it is by sending a clear message to American citizens that this body, the sense of Congress, is that we will not sell out the environment of America for economic advantage. We will place the environment of the United States and the citizens who live in that environment first and foremost in all of our relationships. I ask my colleagues, please, to pull together and just say, let us work together so that we make sure our relationships with Mexico and the United States and the environment are all cleaned up together. That kind of commitment is what I am asking for today. I ask for approval of this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his steadfast support to addressing this concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 331. From the beginning, the chairman has been committed to addressing this as an outcome-based strategy, as it is related to the environmental crisis that we have been confronted with in San Diego, California and Imperial Beach, California and the related surrounding communities of Tijuana. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is simply a sense of Congress. It outlines past problems, and presents the current problems in a clear, concise aspect of the infrastructure problems that relate to Tijuana, Mexico. This lack of infrastructure has forced the closure of beaches and caused environmental and economic hardships for the San Diego region, including the degradation of the Tijuana National Estuarian Wildlife Preserve. This resolution simply states that the government of Mexico needs to recognize and mitigate the inadequate sewage infrastructure that is impacting the United States. Frankly, we need the United States and Mexico recognizing that it is the impact and outcome of this pollution that matters the most. Let me place an emphasis on the word ``review'' that is in this bill. It states that if this problem is not taken care of, then the United States will ``review'' its treaties with Mexico. That is all it says. It does not say we will repeal them. It does not mean we will be punitive, but it says we have a relationship with Mexico, we have treaties, and if there is a continuing environmental and health threat, we as Congress think that it is important enough for us to review our treaties. I do not think the word ``review'' is punitive or mean-spirited. I think it is logical. This is only a sense of Congress. It is not legally binding. All we are trying to say is that the long-term relations between our two great countries have many factors that have to be considered. Frankly one of those major factors is the environment along our frontier. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not punitive against Mexico. It is not anti-Mexican. It is anti-pollution. Now, there are those who oppose NAFTA. Some of my close friends opposed NAFTA because they were concerned that increased trade would equate to increased pollution, and they wanted an assurance that our trade agreements were not going to push pollution. This resolution, this sense of Congress just says that all our treaties or agreements will be considered; are they helping or hurting a pollution problem? This pollution problem predates NAFTA. Does that mean that all pollution problems that predate NAFTA now will not be considered in a treaty relationship? Some of my colleagues opposed NAFTA because they were concerned about potential pollution related to NAFTA, but I do not believe anybody who opposed NAFTA on that basis was anti-Mexican. So I would ask that my colleagues not think negatively about those of us who supported NAFTA, hoping that NAFTA would give the inspiration for this Congress and for Mexico to take care of some environmental problems that long predate NAFTA. My intention is to use this forum as a means to educate this Congress specifically on this problem. Now, seeing the interests and concerns that Members have voiced here tonight, I feel we have been successful at least at that step. The fact is children go to the beaches in the United States and have to be told by their parents, ``Patrick, Briana, you can't go in the water. You can't go into your beaches, because a foreign country has polluted your neighborhood.'' The communities of San Diego and Tijuana have enjoyed a special relationship. In fact, I was the mayor of the city that was a sister city to Tijuana long before the City of San Diego even considered a formal long-term relationship with Tijuana. We have strong cultural and economic ties that enable us as neighbors to work together. Even now there are various issues that we are working on to address these issues. We are talking about the City of Imperial Beach and City of San Diego sending vector trucks into Mexico to help clear out their sewer lines. Why would one city send a sewer truck to another neighbor city? So the sewage of one does not pollute their beaches of another. My goal tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to raise the awareness of my colleagues, to say to them they must be familiar with existing environmental problems if they are going to truly address those that they say may be created in the future. It is now my hope that this resolution will sensitize both the Mexican government and the U.S. Government to understand that this issue needs to be addressed, to inspire them to work together on outcome-based environmental strategies. Now I have worked on this item, Mr. Speaker, for over 20 years. I have been involved in negotiations that date back to 1978 with the Carter administration, 1985 in the negotiations and 1990 that actually put together the proposal for building a plant that has cost over $200 million of taxpayers' funds. And American taxpayers who say, ``What are you going to get for it? Are our beaches really going to be clean?'' This sense of Congress will be saying we are committed to our beaches being clean. I would ask us to look at the fact that we are going to implement improvements that tie together economic opportunities with environmental responsibility. I would say to our colleagues--is that so unfair? I would ask us to recognize that we are building plants today that people are concerned are not going to clean up the beaches. This bill is an added assurance by those of us in Congress that, yes, it will clean up the beaches and we will commit that we will do everything possible to clean up those beaches. This August we had a meeting, because we had a situation where the beaches of Imperial Beach were closed during August, summertime, major tourist season, and the tourists came to the United States Open Sand Castle Competition, only to be greeted by red pollution signs. What do I tell Mike Bixler, the mayor of Imperial Beach, when he calls an emergency meeting and says, ``Why are my beaches being polluted by a foreign government?'' What I have told him is that I will do everything possible to educate Washington and to educate Mexico City to what the people of Imperial Beach and Coronado and San Diego are going through. Mr. Speaker, this is only a sense of Congress. We are not asking to spend money, we are not asking to take on anything except the feeling that this has to be addressed, and our colleagues will keep an open mind. Some may say that threats to Mexico does not work and will never work. Well, first of all, I would ask my colleagues to read the record. We are not talking about a threat, we are talking about raising a legitimate concern, just as Ambassador Gavin in 1985 raised a concern over a grant for water projects in Tijuana that would result in more sewage pouring into the United States, and because Gavin at that time spoke clearly and frankly to Mexico, Mexico agreed that we must make major improvements. I think that this is another one of those chances for us to make a clear statement. The problem has gone on for decades and decades and decades. My colleagues, there are those who promised to take care of these environmental problems if NAFTA was passed. Those of my colleagues who oppose NAFTA raised that issue. Now is their chance to say everything will be considered to clean up the environment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues approve H. Con. Res. 331, and let me say sincerely I was raised in a community with raw Mexican sewage pouring in and polluting our beaches. I was raised in this kind of health threat. My children are second generation sewage kids growing up with this pollution. Please let us work together as Members of Congress, and let us work together between the United States and Mexico. Let us make a commitment tonight that from the year 2000 on, from now on, we will stop finding excuses for letting our beaches be polluted, and that the next generation of children that go to that beach will have clean beaches, pure beaches and have an environment that is safe and appropriate. Because let me tell my colleagues flat out: For those who are concerned about social injustice, that environmental policies are not enforced equally, let me assure my colleagues we are talking about a working class neighborhood that happens to have a high percentage of minorities, and they have not been represented by this Congress equally and fairly in the past. Let us start changing that today and tell the children in Imperial Beach and in Tijuana and San Diego we are committed to doing whatever we can whenever we can to make sure it does not happen any more. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to begin by thanking the Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, Mr. Gilman, for his steadfast support and effort on House Concurrent Resolution 331. After returning home to Imperial Beach to close beaches for the second summer in a row, resulting from Mexican sewage overflowing or leaking from inadequate and poorly maintained sewage treatment plants across the border, I asked Chairman Gilman for his assistance in working on this problem. From the beginning, Chairman Gilman has been committed to working with me on this environmental and public health crisis. In fact, earlier this afternoon, the Chairman and I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Mexican Embassy to discuss both countries' mutual interest in resolving these problems. Again, I thank the Chairman for his leadership and support. As the Chairman pointed out, H. Con. Res. 331 is simply a ``sense of Congress'' outlining past and present problems with inadequate sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities in Tijuana, Mexico. This lack of infrastructure has forced beach closures and caused other environmental and economic hardships in the south bay region of San Diego, including severe degradation of the Tijuana National Estuarian Wildlife Preserve. The neighborhoods that are directly impacted by this health threat, such as my hometown of Imperial Beach, consist of largely working class, predominately minority families. The Concurrent Resolution goes on to state that if the government of Mexico does not recognize and mitigate the inadequacy of sewage infrastructure, then the United States should ``review'' its existing relationships with Mexico, including existing treaties and other international agreements to see where the weaknesses may exist. Let me place an emphasis on the word review. Such a review will open both the governments of the United States and Mexico to scrutiny on these agreements. Let me be perfectly clear, this is ONLY a sense of Congress. It is not legally binding, nor does it require Congress to Act. This resolution is not punitive, nor is it anti-Mexico. Frankly, my intent is to use it as a means of educating Congress on the problems many border communities confront on a regular basis. Given the number of Members now showing interest in this issue, I think I've been successful. I recognize and applaud the ongoing bilateral efforts and binational cooperation of the governments of Mexico and the United States in developing a long-term solution in addressing this problem. The communities of San Diego and Tijuana enjoy a special relationship. Their strong cultural and economic ties have enabled these neighbors to work together, even now, on a variety of issues, including sewage spills. My ultimate goal is for Washington, DC and Mexico City to reach this same level of cooperation and to increase their responsiveness to the local citizens of San Diego and Tijuana. My intent is to raise the level of awareness on this issue to my fellow colleagues who may be unfamiliar with some of the unique environmental problems we have along the border. It is also my hope that with this resolution, both the Mexican and U.S. governments will understand just how serious our level of commitment is on this issue, and will be inspired to continue to work cooperatively in resolving both the short-term and long-term problems. Unfortunately, this issue is not new to either the United States or to Mexico. In my 20 years of public service, I have had numerous meetings and extensive dialogue with national and local officials from Mexico, and have raised this issue again on two recent congressional delegation trips to Mexico, as participant in the Interparliamentary Conference. The results have been mixed. On the one hand, Mexico understands the severity of the problem and the need to build a permanent, stable and safe sewage treatment system. On the other, I recognize, better than most, the problems Mexico continues to face in terms of available financial resources. However, the implementation of these efforts has been less than satisfactory. There has yet to be established between these communities a reliable notification system to alert them when a leak or overflow takes place. All of the communities affected need to realize that this is a regional crisis, and it will take the entire region to resolve these issues. The United States and Mexico have demonstrated that they can work effectively together, but clearly more attention needs to be devoted to follow-through. In 1990, the United States and Mexico agreed to build a sewage treatment plant in the United States to treat sewage waste from Mexico, because the treatment plant in Mexico was unable to treat the increased volume of waste. However, leakages and overflows on the Mexican side of the border have continued to occur. Unfortunately, that waste continuously ends up on local U.S. beaches. The multi-million dollar plant can't treat sewage that doesn't get to the pipe, which can deliver it for treatment. Frustration on the part of local officials culminated in an August meeting organized by the mayor of Imperial Beach. Participants included IBWC Commissioners from both Mexico and the United States, a San Diego County supervisor, the Counsel General from Tijuana, City of San Diego officials, and myself. While the attendees were reassured with the status of the long-term plan, concerns remain about the current overflow of sewage waste. A dialogue of possible short-term solutions was initiated at this meeting. As a result of these discussions, the cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach are attempting to send U.S. vector trucks across the border into Tijuana, Mexico to clean out the accumulated debris and cobble stones, which are causing blockages in the pipes and storm drains, which, in turn, are causing sewage to run into the Tijuana River and on to our beaches. We're awaiting final approval from Mexican Customs implementation of this project. I'd like to raise one last issue. There are some pundits and foreign policy ``experts'' that will claim that Mexico does not respond well under pressure or to threats, and that this resolution will harm the situation more than help it. Again, this is only a ``sense of Congress''--we're only bringing long overdue attention to a very serious problem and maintain the level or urgency of this problem until a solution is in place. I might add that there are also those who will argue that the threat of pressure on Mexico has been used before as an excuse to not assert the need for change to the status quo. More importantly, however, how can we, as a Congress, in good conscience allow our environment and our public health and safety continue to be at risk without raising this issue? This problem has been going on for decades. It's about time both sides come together and acknowledge the need to comprehensively resolve the sewage crisis along the border. H. Con. Res. 331 can begin this process. Again, thank you for your consideration and I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 331. I would ask that these materials be placed into the Record following my statement. [From The Tribune, Nov. 14, 1989] Tijuana Sewage is Flowing Faster, Killing Estuary (By Michael Richmond) An increasing amount of raw sewage flowing across the border from Mexico is killing marine life and threatening birds in the Tijuana River estuary, according to a newly completed study of the huge saltwater marsh. The increase is the result of the continued growth of Tijuana, where many neighborhoods are not hooked up to sewers. The sewage flow in the river now averages nearly 10 million gallons a day, up from about 7 million gallons a day two years ago, according to Dion McMicheaux, resident engineer here for the International Boundary and Water Commission. A three-year federally funded study shows that the sewage- laden water flowing down the river has harmed game fish and shellfish in the saltwater marsh at the river's mouth. The marsh is a part of the 2,500-acre Tijuana River National Estuarine Reserve and the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge. In recent years, the Tijuana River Valley has been beset with problems. The beach stretching from the south city limits of Imperial Beach to the Mexican border, considered by some as one of the most beautiful in Southern California, is deserted most days, except for an occasional jogger or horse rider. Among the area's troubles: The two-mile beachfront has been under a health quarantine since 1983 because of sewage pollution from the Tijuana River. Sewage bacteria levels as much as five times the health limit have been measured in the ocean waters. Some surfers regularly ignore the warning, however. The 390-acre Border Field State Park, nestled against the international boundary, was closed for four months in 1988 because of renegade sewage flows from Mexico, causing the closure from June to mid-September this year after it was overwhelmed with thousands of undocumented migrants and smugglers who used it as a staging area for their trips northward. The park was shut down without any public announcement and has just as quietly reopened, but only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Biologists and other researchers studying the Tijuana River estuary and its ecosystem no longer do field work at night because of the danger from border bandits. County health officials are worried about the potential for an outbreak of malaria or encephalitis from breeding of mosquitoes in sewage ponds that accumulate at times in the river bottom. The water is ``heavily laden'' with mosquito larvae, says Larry Aker, assistant deputy director of the county's Environmental Health Services. Some of the sewage settles out of the water as it makes its way through a maze of small channels that thread the estuary en route to the ocean. ``We are essentially killing off that estuary,'' Aker said. A walk south from Imperial Beach along the beach at the edge of the estuary can be deceiving. Ocean waves wash gently upon the sandy beach. A flock of seagulls with a lone brown pelican among them rest on a sandbar near the river mouth. To the south, two riders trot their horses along the beach. The water flowing from the estuary outlet to the sea appears fairly clear, diluted by incoming tides. But a quarter-mile inland from the beach, the scene is much different. In places, the water is like a pea-green soup, full of algae, said Chris Nordby, manager of the Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory at San Diego State University. It is also an area where there are no pollution sampling stations, ``because when I went in there to set up my samples, there just were no animals. There's absolutely nothing there,'' Nordby said. Evidence of the extreme environmental damage to the estuary is contained in a just-completed study funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which found significant depletions in some fish and shellfish species, such as clams. The study is based on water-quality testing and sampling of fish and shellfish from 1986 through March of 1989. One small game fish known as Tops Smelt, which formerly accounted for 52 percent of the fish in the estuary, has fallen to about 5 percent, said Nordby, a biologist and principal researcher for the pollution study. The California jacknife clam, which in years past accounted for 70 percent to 86 percent of the clam population, ``is now down to about 27 percent,'' Nordby said. Another shellfish, the purple clam, is virtually extinct there. ``People used to clam here in the 1970s and take their limit, but not anymore,'' said Nordby, who has been studying the estuary since 1978. Small sand dollars, once abundant, are rarely found these days, he said. ``Every now and then you'll find a small tiny one, but they don't survive like they used to,'' he said. The harm is caused by the year-round influx of polluted fresh water, which dilutes the salinity of the estuary, Nordby explained. When that happens, marine organism are killed or escape from the estuary. In addition to marine organisms, the estuary is home to dozens of bird species, including the endangered least tern and the light-footed clapper rail. The effects of the sewage pollution on bird life have not been documented, but Nordby and others believe there is potential for harm. They note that a decline in the marine life on which birds feed will eventually reduce the bird populations. Paul Jorgensen, manager of the Tijuana River National Estuarine Reserve, said extensive studies are needed to confirm the effects on birds. But he added, ``If the shellfish, crabs and fish are affected, then the birds probably are affected.'' Nordby and others worried about the wetlands are pinning their hopes for its recovery on construction of a binational sewage treatment plant that has been proposed for the border to treat sewage from Tijuana. The treated effluent would be discharged directly into the ocean through a big pipe. But the binational plant is still a long way from being approved. Mexico and U.S. officials have made only preliminary commitments. Negotiations on a detailed agreement between the two countries are under way by the Mexican and U.S. commissioners of the International Boundary and Water Commission in El Paso, Texas. Narendra N. Gunaji, head of the U.S. section of the international boundary commission, predicted earlier this year that the new plant could be in operation by 1993. That estimate, however, was tied to a firm commitment from Mexico that it would participate in the plant and on funding from both countries. Without such a plant, the pollution woes of the Tijuana River Valley will only grow as Tijuana keeps growing, officials say. ``I think the federal, state and local governments have a responsibility to the people in the area to make sure that dream becomes a reality,'' said County Supervisor Brian Bilbray, a former Imperial Beach councilman and mayor who has spent his entire political career trying to resolve the Tijuana River Valley's troubles. ``The sewage problem has become bad enough that the Federal Government can't ignore it anymore,'' he said, ``We're going to find answers . . . because you just can't allow problems like that to exist.'' In addition to the border sewage plant, Bilbray said, development of the long-sought Tijuana River Valley Regional Park will help transform the river valley. The county park will encompass 2,200 acres along both sides of the river, extending from the ocean eastward to San Ysidro. It has received $10 million in state park bond funds and two weeks ago was given another $1.5 million by the Tia Juana Valley County Water District, which apparently is about to shut down after a half-century in existence. Bilbray has been critical of the Border Patrol and state and federal park and wildlife managers for past practices that he says have focused more on wildlife protection and keeping people out of the area. He also criticized the Border Patrol for its ``scorched earth'' practice of clearing underbrush from large areas of the river channel to help them patrol the region. ``If you and I did that, we'd go to jail,'' Bilbray said. As for development of the regional park, he said he believes that wildlife preservation and recreation in the river valley can be compatible ``if you do it right.'' Bilbray envisions miles of trails, small fishing lakes, campgrounds and other amenities. ``I'm real optimistic that we're seeing a lot of movement we haven't seen in 20 years,'' he said of efforts to solve the river valley's problems. [From The Tribune, Jan. 26, 1990] 3 Officials Here Pledge To Fight Sewage Project (By Kathryn Balint) Meeting the news media in the sewage-polluted Tijuana River Valley, two San Diego city councilmen and a county supervisor vowed yesterday to fight to save local sewer users at least $1 billion on a massive project they say would harm the environment. ``This is a fight we still can win,'' said Councilman Bruce Henderson. Henderson, Councilman Bob Filner and Supervisor Brian Bilbray called a news conference yesterday to make it clear that their battle against San Diego city government's nearly $3 billion upgrade in sewage treatment is continuing. In a closed-door session this week, the city council agreed in a 7-2 vote on a settlement of the federal government's lawsuit accusing the city of discharging inadequately treated sewage into the ocean. The vote, which was taken secretly because by law the council is allowed to discuss litigation in private, will end a two-year legal dispute between the city and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Henderson and Filner coast the dissenting votes. Bilbray, Henderson and Filner said the city should not have caved in to the federal government by agreement to build the multibillion-dollar sewage facilities by Dec. 31, 2003. The agreement will be made public Tuesday in the U.S. District Court of Judge Rudi M. Brewster. ``That's disgraceful that we should make such a deal as this,'' Filner said. He called the planned sewage project ``a boondoggie'' that will be bad for the environment and for residents' pocketbooks. For the 1.6 million people who use the sewer system, sewer rates are expected to go up dramatically. As they have in the past, Henderson, Filner and Bilbray based their comments on the opinions of noted marine scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla. The scientists, including Roger Revelle, director emeritus of the institution, and Edward Goldberg, a chemist known internationally for his work in fighting ocean pollution, contend that the nutrients in the waste water now disposed of in the ocean pose no hazard to sea life. In fact, they say, the lowest forms of life in the ocean feed on the nutrients in the sewage, which is treated to a step just below the federal standards. The three politicians said they chose the Tijuana River Valley to illustrate their point that a sewage-treatment plant there, near a national estuary, where endangered birds and plants live, would hurt the environment. Anther reason they chose to meet near Border Field State Park in the river valley was to point out the raw sewage flowing daily from Mexico into the United States. Bilbray said the EPA should be focusing its attention on cleaning up the raw sewage there rather than trying to force San Diegans to spend their money on a project that is unnecessary. Bilbray also said that the city should be worrying about ``keeping the sewage in the pipes,'' referring to repeated spills of raw sewage from sewer pipes before it even reaches the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The raw sewage has fouled both Mission Bay and San Diego Bay. One of the provisions of the settlements agreement is aimed at trying to prevent such spills. The three politicians said they will lobby for changes in the Clean Water Act. The act sets a uniform sewage-treatment standard--called secondary sewage treatment--for all cities in the nation. [The San Diego Union, Jan. 26, 1990] Sewer Project Foes Meet Three local officials traveled to a proposed South Bay sewage-treatment plant site yesterday to continue their campaign to overturn what they called the city's ``bureaucratic boondoogle'' decision for a $2.86 billion sewage system upgrade. San Diego City Councilman Bob Filner and County Supervisor Brian Bilbray, whose districts include the Tijuana estuary site proposed for the plant, were joined by San Diego City Councilman Bruce Henderson, an early critic of the massive sewage-system overhaul. ``This is a fight that we can still win,'' Henderson said at the site, just north of the entrance to Border Field State Park, on the coast between the international boundary and southern Imperial Beach city limits. The three argued that the sewage-system upgrade would harm rather than help the environment. They called for more detailed scientific studies on the impacts to the Tijuana River estuary and ocean floor where the treated sewage would be discharged. They want to begin efforts for a new waiver of federal orders for the more advanced treatment system, have congressional hearings to try to amend the requirements of the U.S. Clean Water Act, or mount a court challenge to the federal and state lawsuit filed to force the city into federal compliance.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague from California (Mr. Filner) and point out that on environmental issues we should never threaten, but we should also never be afraid to hold people to standards. We should just be cooperative. Frankly, let us recognize about this, is that we have to date been very cooperative. The fact is, Mexico City and Washington, D.C. have not been as sensitive to the problem. As my colleague has pointed out, we have built a lot of projects, but the beaches are still polluted. A $2 million project for a pipeline by itself does not make the beaches any cleaner and does not make the public any safer. Let me point out to my colleague, he may not be aware of the meeting we had this August, but I participated in that meeting. Showing the lack of sensitivity we can get on both sides, we still have 9 million gallons of drinking water pouring into raw sewage, spreading the pollution more onto Mexico's side. The word I have gotten on this is that the resources and the commitment by Mexico City has been lacking. The frustration of the people in Tijuana is that Mexico City needs to be more aware of this. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman participated in this discussion, because the International Boundary and Water commissioner mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) has this week delivered this sense of Congress to Mexico City. So hopefully it will tell everybody-- let us work together. Let me point out that my reference to reviewing treaties and existing commitments may not necessarily mean reductions, but may also mean increases in resources under existing relationships. But it does mean that we will look at this substantially. I challenge my colleagues again to say that outcome does not matter here. All I am saying is, all the treatment plants, all the talk, all the negotiations, all of the relationships are fabulous, but if they do not make the environment safe for the children of Tijuana and San Diego and Imperial Beach, then all we are is a bunch of diplomats and politicians sitting around talking, patting ourselves on the back while our children are exposed to hepatitis, and God knows what else. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to consider that and consider the kids that continue to be exposed. All I am asking is a sense of Congress that says this is important enough for us to review everything and let us talk about it, let us look it over. Let us set the standard that ending pollution is what we care about, not just the building of projects.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, the Border Smog Reduction Act. H.R. 8 is a bipartisan commonsense approach to an environmental problem that has been identified along our Mexican border for all too long. It is common sense in the manner that it completely connects the concept that those who wish to gain economic opportunities must also bear environmental responsibilities. At the heart of this bill is the basic concept that fairness is essential in the enforcement of our environmental regulations within this country and among nations. I would ask Members to remember that with H.R. 8, we are asking our Federal agencies to now be included in assisting the enforcement of environmental regulations that the Federal Government has mandated on the local communities along our borders. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to make sure that I have identified and thanked my colleagues for the immense amount of help that has been given to this Member in moving along the Smog Reduction Act--by the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Michael Bilirakis), by the full chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley), and specifically staff member, Bob Meyers, who worked hard in making sure that H.R. 8 did become law. The oversight chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Joe Barton) actually was one of the original coauthors of this bill in the 104th Congress, and the experience of Texas in this process was actually enhanced by the support of the gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Sylvestre Reyes), with his extensive background in border issues. At the same time, in the other body, Senator Chafee and Senator Inhofe have been very, very supportive in getting this bill through the Senate. I would also at this time like to strongly praise my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sherrod Brown) for his aid in making this bill possible, and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Henry Waxman). Mr. Speaker, this bill is a model, not only for those of us in the House to be able to work in a bipartisan way to address environmental problems, but also a model of the fact that we are no longer going to ignore the environmental challenges along our frontiers. In fact, it is refective of the strategy that we are going to use the economic opportunities of international trade as a vehicle to focus on environmental problems that have been ignored for all too long. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state quite clearly my appreciation to the entire governmental structure in Washington, for once addressing these problems, faced by those of us who live along the border. I look forward to working together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and working with the Republic of Mexico, and Canada, in making sure that current and future problems, faced such as smog problems along the border are addressed, along with many others. I think this can be a vehicle that we can use as a blueprint here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and hopefully in our continuing relationships with our neighbors to the north and south. I ask Members' support for H.R. 8. It is a common-sense approach to addressing an important public health issue, and at the same time assessing what more can be done to make sure that we properly address those remaining issues that have not been addressed comprehensively. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the passage of H.R. 8.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues five major research advances at the University of California, San Diego, that have come about thanks to the support in this body for science research funding. These advances, included in the just-published ``Great Advances'' report released by the Science Coalition, demonstrate once again the value of federal funding for university-based research. The Great Advances report highlights UC San Diego research in the areas of transportation, physics, defense, environment, and disease and injury treatment. I believe that these five projects reflect much of what is best about science research in the university environment, including collaboration between institutions, leveraging of federal dollars with private dollars to maximize research value, and the potential for university research to support America's national security. Research at the UCSD's Scripps Institution of Oceanography into acoustics and wave sounds is of immediate value to the U.S. military, enabling defense planners to better monitor onshore activity and better prepare for landings. Bioengineering Department research into knee cartilage--providing the first real picture of what happens when cartilage is squeezed and flattened as it absorbs impact--was jointly funded by the Whitaker Foundation and the Arthritis Foundation, leveraging funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Biophysicists from UCSD and Caltech collaborated to capture in atomic detail changes that take place in the earliest stages of photosynthesis. Researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography are collaborating with more than 60 scientists from around the world, including India, England, France, Germany, Mauritius, and the Netherlands in the Indian Ocean Experiment, or INDOEX, an effort to measure the cooling effect of sulfates and other aerosols on regional climate. Mr. Speaker, I have long supported Federal funding for science research, because I believe that it contributes in a wide variety of ways to the health and well-being of the United States. While I commend my colleagues to the entire report, I am pleased to see that so much of the research highlighted as ``Great Advances'' of the 105th Congress includes projects conducted by researchers from UC San Diego. Science has played and will continue to play an important role for America as we move forward into the 21st Century. I congratulate the many UCSD scientists whose work has been recognized in the ``Great Advances'' report, and I urge my colleagues to continue to recognize the importance of Federal funding for university-based science. Excerpts from the Science Coalition's ``Great Advances'' Report: Advances at the University of California, San Diego Transportation: Research Breakthroughs Lead to Lighter, Safer Bridges Structural engineers at the University of California-San Diego's Irwin and Joan Jacobs School of Engineering have designed the nation's first major advanced composites vehicular bridge, culminating years of defense technology research on advanced composite materials. The 450-foot bridge over Interstate 5 in San Diego will be the first of its kind built for vehicular traffic. It will be constructed with advanced materials--including glass, carbon and aramid fibers embedded in polymer matrices. The composite materials are lighter, stronger and more durable than conventional materials which enables us to build bridges, highways and buildings faster and with less disruption to traffic flow. Because they are lighter, such structures would be much less sensitive to ground motion from earthquakes. This research is made possible through funding from the Federal Highway Administration. Defense: Ocean Technology Aids Military Using a set of sensitive sound devices called seismoacoustic arrays, a team of scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California- San Diego monitored current and wave dynamics and beach surf conditions. Their goal was to provide the military with insight into conducting amphibious missions augmented with covertly deployed onshore and offshore acoustic sensors and wave and current sensors. The researchers found that land vehicle activity can be clearly detected and tracked using data from underwater devices located as far as 2.2 miles offshore. This research is made possible through funding from the Office of Naval Research. Disease and Injury Treatment: Mechanical Blueprint for Knee Cartilage A team of bioengineers at the University of California-San Diego has for the first time described in detail what happens when cartilage is squeezed and flattened as it absorbs impact. As the body's shock absorber, cartilage is a cushion of durable tissue that protects the knee from a lifetime of walking, bending and running. Although it is only a few millimeters thick, cartilage is a complex tissue made up of several regions, each with its own distinct composition and structure. The UCSD researchers' blueprint, which includes the mechanical properties of cartilage and how it works in the body, provides valuable insight for the development of laboratory-grown knee cartilage to replace damaged tissue, including treatments for arthritic and aging cartilage. This research is made possible through funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Arthritis Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the Whitaker Foundation. physics: atomic details of photosynthesis Photosynthesis is probably the single most important chemical reaction in the biological world. Indeed, all life derives its energy from photosynthesis. A team of biophysicists from the University of California-San Diego and Caltech recently captured in atomic detail the changes that take place when light strikes the site where the primary events of photosynthesis occur--a protein called the reaction center. The results are offering a new and detailed explanation for how this complex chemical reaction takes place. They're also offering a vital step toward the creation of artificial photosynthesis, a process that one day could usher in a new era of food and energy production. This research is made possible through funding from the National Science Foundation. environment: international experiment in indian ocean to study role of pollutants in climate change More than 60 scientists from around the world, including researchers at the University of California-San Diego, have joined forces in a $25 million international experiment to answer a pivotal question in climate change: How are pollutants known as aerosols cooling the planet and impacting global warming? The project, called the Indian Ocean Experiment, or INDOEX, is one of the first attempts by scientists to measure the cooling effect of sulfates and other aerosols on regional climate. Scientists from England, France, Germany, India, Maldives, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States are participating in field studies in the experiment. This research is made possible through funding from the National Science Foundation. defense: ocean technology aids military Using a set of sensitive sound devices called seismoacoustic arrays, a team of scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California- San Diego monitored current and wave dynamics and beach surf conditions. Their goal was to provide the military with insight into conducting amphibious missions augmented with covertly deployed onshore and offshore acoustic sensors and wave and current sensors. The researchers found that land vehicle activity can be clearly detected and tracked using data from underwater devices located as far as 2.2 miles offshore. This research is made possible through funding from the Office of Naval Research.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect and admiration for a man of great fortitude and commitment to the world community. It is with great pleasure that I extend my high commendation to Harry D. Frels of San Diego, CA, who has served on the Kiwanis International Foundation's board since 1993 and served as President of the Foundation this year. The Kiwanis International Foundation is the charitable arm of Kiwanis International, one of the world's leading service clubs. There are currently 8,570 Kiwanis clubs in 82 nations. The Kiwanis family of service organizations numbers more than 600,000 adult and youth volunteers. Harry Frels has traveled as far as France and Korea to promote the foundation's goals and programs. The Kiwanis International Foundation is playing a central role in the Kiwanis Worldwide Service Project. In partnership with the United Nations Children's Fund, Kiwanis clubs have pledged to raise $75 million to assist nations in eliminating iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) the leading preventable cause of mental retardation in the world today. Under Harry Frels' leadership, the Foundation reached the $32 million mark in fulfilling this commitment, and these funds have been distributed to support IDD programs in more than 65 nations. UNICEF estimates that these Kiwanis-funded IDD programs are now saving more than 6 million children from mental retardation each year. Harry Frels is a Marine Corps veteran of World War II. He has been a Kiwanis member since 1961 and has served as president of both the North Hollywood and the San Diego Kiwanis clubs. He is currently the San Diego club's secretary and executive director. In addition to Kiwanis, he has served his community in many ways, including as a board member or chairman of the San Diego Hall of Champions, the YMCA of San Diego County, the Salvation Army Central Advisory Board, the Greater San Diego Sports Association, and the San Diego Holiday Bowl. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to pay tribute to Harry D. Frels who is always ready to contribute his time and talents to meet the needs of his community and the world. Although he is stepping down as President of the Kiwanis International Foundation, I am confident his lifestyle of and commitment to public service will continue for years to come.