Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, again, as someone who has lived on the frontier and close to this issue all my life, I need to ask of our colleagues to do a reality check here. The fact is that the existing system is wrong, and I would ask my colleagues to recognize that in my community, where I went to school, in my schools, in my high school, there were legal and illegal immigrants going to school there. But under the existing law that this body talks about, and we talk among ourselves, and this is not where the message is we need to send, we need to send it out there, it is illegal to enter the country illegally and go to school for free in San Francisco. But if someone crosses the border illegally, then they have the guaranteed right from the government for a free education. And for those individuals who say this has nothing to with people coming here illegally, we have documents showing, in fact testimony that showed up in the paper where an illegal woman was caught at the border with three letters form a school district that said your children will get a free education even if you are here illegally. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the words of this lady, she said, you want us here. You want us to come here illegally. You would not reward us and give us free education. Mr. Speaker, the message that needs to be sent not here in these Chambers but to the rest of the world and America, is that, no, the days of encouraging illegal immigration is over. We are not going to reward people for breaking the law. We are not going to punish those who play by the rules and reward those who break the rules. I would ask every Member to consider the fact that 4062 says let us reimburse for the cost if we do not want to drop the mandate.

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. BILBRAY. If I may answer the question, what I told my cousin in Australia is: Tom, just because in the past America has rewarded people for breaking our immigration law----

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield now?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of actually discussing and negotiating this issue at length with representatives in Mexico of the Senate and the Congress. Let me tell you, I heard the same arguments in Mexico that I am hearing on the floor right now of excuses not to do the reasonable thing. What is interesting is I do not think any of us think that Mexico is xenophobic or antiimmigrant. But the fact is in Mexico, they have a law that says you must prove you are a legal resident, if you are not a citizen, before you even get into a private school, let alone a public school. So the xenophobic issue, I think, is pretty settled and Mexico agrees it is a reasonable approach. But I ask you, who are the children we are talking about here? I hear people on the floor saying ``our children.'' Are they talking about the legal citizen children who are not getting their fair share of education in the States impacted? Or are they talking about ``our children'' who are the legal resident aliens, who have played by the rules, who are not getting their fair share of the revenue for their education? Or are they talking about ``our children'' as being the illegal aliens in school right now? Because this bill does not affect any of those people. It says if you are illegally here today, you can continue to go to school. It just says that the people who are thinking of coming here to the United States, who are not here now, we will not require a free education to be given to your children. So when you say ``our children,'' are you talking about the people here in the United States today, or are you saying this Congress represents the illegal immigrants who are not even in this country today, that are thinking of coming, that they take priority over everyone else in the educational system today. Mr. Speaker, I ask to pass this bill, because it is for our children, both those who are legally and illegally here today, and the citizens. All it asks is that those who have not come here and made the decision to break our laws not be rewarded and encouraged to do that. That is all we are asking for. I would ask my colleagues, when you talk about this, think about the fact that the message we are sending around the world, to my cousins in Australia who say ``We hear if you break the laws of America you get rewarded.'' It is time we stop sending that message, not just to Latin America and Australia, but the rest of the world. Let us play by the rules.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this progressive and bipartisan bill, which will have an enormously beneficial effect on the health and environment of the American people. As a conferee on this landmark legislation, I can tell you that this conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA] marks a major shift away from the regulatory status quo of placing undue value and emphasis on the regulation itself, toward what the practical effect of the regulation actually is on the public health and our natural resources. This is as it should be. It is this kind of outcome-driven and science-based environmental policy setting that I have been proud to be a part of in this Congress. This is the kind of process in which I was used to operating during my time in local government, and the results of this cooperative and effective policy making which we see here today will allow us to better serve the public health needs of the American people. It has been a privilege for me to have been able to play a close role in strengthening and improving such an important statute as the SDWA. These amendments will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in how the SDWA is implemented. H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's priorities and resources toward those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater flexibility in implementing the improved SDWA law, and place new emphasis on ensuring that public water systems have the necessary technical, managerial, and financial resources available to comply with the SDWA. Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant at the time of their inception in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not been reauthorized since 1986. However, the passage of time invariably exposes weaknesses or shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes, and we need to recognize and respond to this. In the past, it has often been easier to confront problems by simply blaming a law, instead of working together to determine whether the law in question is being properly implemented, or whether it is still effective in serving its intended purpose. These laws need to be as dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing environments we intend for them to protect, and the people who live in them. This means that occasionally such laws must be reexamined and renewed, in order to ensure that their original goals are still being achieved. I have always believed that we ought not to cling to the conventional wisdom that our public health and environmental laws are set in stone, and incapable of being improved with the application of new knowledge. In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the responsibility to see to it that when modern science and technology can be applied to improve these laws, we take the appropriate action to do so. Many of our crown jewel environmental laws were written over 20 years ago, and it is incumbent upon us to make these needed improvements when necessary. With this comprehensive reauthorization, this Congress accomplishes a challenging but long- unachievable task on behalf of all of our constituents nationwide. I want to commend my Chairmen, Mr. Biley and Mr. Bilirakis, and my other colleagues who worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to help make this happen. In addition to the sound science-based foundation of this bill, I am particularly proud of section 305 of the bill, which addresses health standards for bottled water. Section 305 is a refinement of legislation (H.R. 2601) which I introduced earlier in this Congress. My language will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a maximum containment level for tap water, and any FDA regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant, take effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation within a realistic time frame as established by section 305, the regulation established by the EPA for that element in tap water will be considered the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled water. This will provide consumers with the health assurances that the water they can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards as their tap water. I have a letter from the International Bottled Water Association which elaborates on the benefits of this provision, which I would like entered in the record. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude with an observation. In my hometown of San Diego, my family and my constituents are very fortunate to already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our drinking water; in fact a recent study by a national environmental group found that water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health advisories over the last 3 years. By comparison, the same study found that an alarmingly high percentage of water systems in some regions of the country, including Washington DC had reported health advisories or compliance failures during the same time period. The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments we will pass today, and which will soon be signed into law, will strengthen and improve the weak links in the existing statute, and in so doing will help bring these high levels of health and environmental quality which we appreciate in San Diego to other communities nationwide. Again, and I can't emphasize it enough, this is a progressive step forward, away from a 1970's-era process which places higher value on process and regulation itself, towards a more responsible and outcome- based approach which focuses on the product that is generated. This will help us reinforce our common goals of better serving the public health needs of the American people, and providing us with a cleaner and safer overall environment, which is something we ought to be ever mindful of, and never not take for granted. International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA, June 25, 1996. Hon. Brian Bilbray, Longworth House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Bilbray: The International Bottled Water Association, which represents over 85 percent of all bottled water sold in the United States, would like to thank you for your help in drafting the bottled water provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation. We are also grateful to the committee staff who developed this improved version of the Senate bottled water provision in cooperation with your legislative director, Dave Schroeder. Our industry strongly supports the principal objective of this provision, i.e., to require that any EPA regulation setting a maximum contaminant level for tap water and any FDA regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant take effect at the same time. One in six households relies on bottled water as their source of drinking water. There are 430 companies producing bottled water in the United States with annual sales estimated at $3.4 billion, making bottled water one of the fastest growing segments of the beverage industry. Bottled water is regulated by the FDA, the states and through IBWA's own model code. The bottled water provision will ensure that a FDA standard for a contaminant in bottled water is set in a timely manner and is no less protective of the public health than the EPA regulation for the same contaminant in tap water. We look forward to seeing the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation signed into law this year. Thank you. Sincerely, Sylvia E. Swanson, Executive Vice President. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with my colleagues who are concerned about the effective and efficient use of taxpayers' funds. I think all of America will be very impressed with the fact that Congress is finally very, very sensitive on that issue. But let me remind my colleagues, if we defeat this bill here today we will lose over $500 million that can be used for safeguarding our drinking water. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is having a new Safe Drinking Water Act that fulfills the promises of the old act. One example is that there are many assumptions that the voters and the citizens of America make about their drinking water. One of them was the fact that when one bought a bottle of water, that the Federal Government assured that it was as clean as what was coming out of the tap. Under the old act that assurance was not a reality. Under the new act that assurance will be in reality. Now, our bottled water in America has been very good, but I think the assurance that it is, and will remain good is what the new act is all about. We are fulfilling the promises of the old act with the new act. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to live in the community of San Diego, which, according to every major environmental group that has investigated it, has some of the safest drinking water in the entire United States. It is too bad, though, that when I fly across the country every week and come to work in Washington, I cannot be assured that in Washington, here in the Nation's Capital, where the Federal Government has its greatest responsibility, our drinking water is not as safe as it is on the Pacific coast. I would ask that my colleagues find reasons to improve on the old, to be able to move forward in a progressive way. This bill is the progressive bill, the bill that fulfills the promises of the old that never were fulfilled. Today it is time to move forward. Let us not find excuses to walk away from our responsibilities. Let us do what is right and approve this new, progressive Safe Drinking Water Act. I rise in strong support of this progressive and bipartisan bill, which will have an enormously beneficial effect on the health and environment of the American people. As a conferee on this landmark legislation, I can tell you that this conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] marks a major shift away from the regulatory status quo of placing undue value and emphasis on the regulation itself, toward what the practical effect of the regulation actually is on the public health and our natural resources. This is as it should be. It is this kind of outcome-driven and science-based environmental policy-setting that I have been proud to be a part of in this Congress. This is the kind of process in which I was used to operating during my time in local government, and the results of this cooperative and effective policy-making which we see here today will allow us to better serve the public health needs of the American people. It has been a privilege for me to have been able to play a close role in strengthening and improving such an important statute as the SDWA. These amendments will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in how the SDWA is implemented. H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's priorities and resources toward those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater flexibility in implementing the improved SDWA law, and place new emphasis on ensuring that public water systems have the necessary technical, managerial, and financial resources available to comply with the SDWA. Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant at the time of their inception--in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not been reauthorized since 1986. However, the passage of time invariably exposes weaknesses or shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes, and we need to recognize and respond to this. In the past, it has often been easier to confront problems by simply blaming a law, instead of working together to determine whether the law in question is being properly implemented, or whether it is still effective in serving its intended purpose. These laws need to be as dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing environments we intend for them to protect, and the people who live in them. This means that occasionally such laws must be reexamined and renewed, in order to ensure that their original goals are still being achieved. I have always believed that we ought not to cling to the conventional wisdom that our public health and environment laws are ``set in stone'', and incapable of being improved with the application of new knowledge. In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the responsibility to see to it that when modern science and technology can be applied to improve these laws, we take the appropriate action to do so. Many of our ``crown jewel'' environmental laws were written over 20 years ago, and it is incumbent upon us in to make these needed improvements when necessary. With this comprehensive reauthorization, this Congress accomplished a challenging but long-unachievable task on behalf of all of our constituents nationwide. I want to commend my chairmen, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis, and my other colleagues who worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to help make this happen. In addition to the sound science-based foundation of this bill, I am particularly proud of section 305 of the bill, which addresses health standards for bottled water. Section 305 is a refinement of legislation, H.R. 2601, which I introduced earlier in this Congress. My language will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a maximum contaminant level for tap water, and any FDA regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant, take effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation within a realistic time frame as established by section 305, the regulation established by the EPA for that element in tap water will be considered the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled water. This will provide consumers with the health assurances that the water they can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards as their tap water. I have a letter from the International Bottled Water Association which elaborates on the benefits of this provision, which I would like entered in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude with an observation. In my hometown of San Diego, my family and my constituents are very fortunate to already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our drinking water, in fact a recent study by a national environmental group found that water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health advisories over the last three years. By comparison, the same study found that an alarmingly high percentage of water systems in some regions of the country--including Washington, DC--had reported health advisories or compliance failures during the same time period. The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments we will pass today, and which will soon be signed into law, will strengthen and improve the weak links in the existing statute, and in so doing will help bring these high levels of health and environmental quality which we appreciate in San Diego to other communities nationwide. Again, and I can't emphasize it enough, this is a progressive step forward, away from a 1970's-era process which places higher value on process and regulation itself, towards a more responsible and outcome- based approach which focuses on the product that is generated. This will help us reinforce our common goals of better serving the public health needs of the American people, and providing us with a cleaner and safer overall environment, which is something we ought to be ever mindful of, and never take for granted. International Bottled Water Association, Alexandria, VA, June 25, 1996. Hon. Brian Bilbray, Longworth House Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Bilbray: The International Bottled Water Association, which represents over 85 percent of all bottled water sold in the United States, would like to thank you for your help in drafting the bottled water provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation. We are also grateful to the committee staff who developed this improved version of the Senate bottled water provision in cooperation with your legislative director, Dave Schroeder. Our industry strongly supports the principal objective of this provision, i.e., to require that any EPA regulation setting a maximum contaminant level for tap water and any FDA regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant take effect at the same time. One in six households relies on bottled water as their source of drinking water. There are 430 companies producing bottled water in the United States with annual sales estimated at $3.4 billion, making bottled water one of the fastest growing segments of the beverage industry. Bottled water is regulated by the FDA, the states and through IBWA's own model code. The bottled water provision will ensure that a FDA standard for a contaminant in bottled water is set in a timely manner and is no less protective of the public health than the EPA regulation for the same contaminant in tap water. We look forward to seeing the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation signed into law this year. Thank you. Sincerely, Sylvia E. Swanson, Executive Vice President.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this legislation. I would just say to my colleagues, come to San Diego and see the stacks of bilingual ballots. Mr. Chairman, last month there was a lady in my county named Mrs. Velazquez who was sworn in as a new citizen. I do not know what her position is on this, but I know what her position was on being sworn in as a citizen. She wanted to be sworn in as an American who speaks English. She did it as English, so that she could be mainstreamed. The fact is, the common language of English is the place where we can meet, the mainstream. I know no reason morally that we can say we want to divide and make sure people do not meet in the mainstream. But, Mr. Chairman, we should remember the fact that when immigrants want to be mainstreamed, they choose the English, and we should do everything we can to encourage that. There are those that would want to encourage to divide. In the past, the people of California have been brave enough to pass an initiative to say English should be our common language. Mr. Chairman, let us be brave enough to do the same, as California did a long time ago.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, ``From many, one''. It does not say, ``From many, more''. It says that we may have diversity, but we have to have a common ground, a common language, that meeting place. Now anyone who feels that that is some kind of antiquated idea, all we have to do is go look to our friends to the north and look at the strife in Canada caused by people who are divided based on the languages they use because they do not have the common bond that we have practiced for so long in America and which has created the cherished experience we call the American way of life. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder why people hide behind a term like ``multiculturalism'' when they do not want to admit what it really means. I live on the Mexican border. I live in an environment where I see people speak different languages. But I also see what happens to people when they do not have that common language of English to be able to move them up. Mr. Chairman, I see those that are deprived of equal access to economic opportunity and those who would do that for political gain. Now, I want to present into the Record a grand jury report done about a school district in my county that verified there was a conscious effort done in the name of multiculturalism to make sure that the children in that school district did not learn English, did not have access to the common language. Mr. Chairman, the only way I can find any justifications for this is that there are people out there who want to divide us, who want to separate us for whatever reasons. Maybe it is easier to manipulate them politically, maybe it is easier to isolate them for economic reasons. But I think that we have got to recognize that all we are saying here today is: Let us not divide us. Let us not make more from many. Let us remember that we need that common ground, that one where we all can meet. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record: Grand Jury, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA, June 18, 1992. Hon. Arthur W. Jones, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA. Re Grand Jury Report No. 5, ``San Ysidro School District''. Dear Judge Jones: Forwarded herewith is Grand Jury Report No. 5 as referenced above. This investigation was conducted by the Education Committee of the Grand Jury within the authority granted under California Penal Code Sections 925 and 933.5. Sincerely, Richard B. Macfie, Foreman. Enclosure. San Ysidro School District (A Report by the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury) area of concern Complaints of improprieties committed by the Trustees of the San Ysidro School District Board and other administrators have attracted the attention of the past three consecutive San Diego County Grand Juries. In monitoring responses to previous Grand Jury recommendations, the 1991-92 Grand Jury has found the performance of the District Board of Trustees to be as ineffective as previously reported and the schools within the District to be suffering accordingly. After several months of review, this Grand Jury finds that previous recommendations to the District Board of Trustees have been ignored and that drastic actions by higher authority are essential to proper support of administrators, teachers, students and parents. Grand Juries sit for a twelve-month period and can, and have repeatedly, recommended effective intervention to aid the children in San Ysidro. Another Grand Jury report that does not initiate immediate remediation by higher authority will only reinforce the perception that the San Ysidro District Board of Trustees is as ``untouchable'' as they claim to be. For those in control at the higher levels of education to imply that nothing can be done to give the children of the community some hope for the future, is an inane posture for government to assume, when the future of more than 3,000 children is ignored. background San Ysidro is a twenty-nine square mile portion of the City of San Diego, which lies north of Tijuana, Mexico. Caught in the middle of these two large and rapidly growing cities-- Tijuana and San Diego--the community is economically, politically, linguistically, socially and geographically isolated. It is often mistaken for an independent subdivision. San Ysidro constitutes a school district separate and independent from the San Diego Unified School District, which includes all other public schools within the City of San Diego. The San Ysidro School District consists of five elementary schools and one middle school. Graduates of San Ysidro Middle School attend high schools in adjacent school districts. The schools have an approximate enrollment of 3,700 students, and they represent a population which is 92% Hispanic. Politically, San Ysidro is comprised of 5,336 registered voters, out of a total adult population (18 and over) of 13,414. The District Board of Trustees, the only elected body in the San Ysidro community, consists of five members who serve staggered terms of four years. The School District is the largest employer in the community. Over a period of several years, the San Diego County Grand Juries have received an uninterrupted flow of complaints alleging malfeasance and/or incompetence on the part of the majority of the School District Trustees and some administrators and teachers. Complaints have been received from parents. These have included numerous allegations of wrongdoing, including violations of State law (violations of the Brown Act and Education Code), and of Federal Law (employment discrimination) and of failure to support mandated objectives for the education of the school population. Additionally, the District has been involved in excessive and expensive litigation in recent years as a result of its unlawful personnel actions. methodology of investigation Through its Education Committee, the Grand Jury has visited facilities and heard testimony from Board Members, administrators, teachers, parents and students within the San Ysidro School District. The committee attended board meetings and PTA meetings and held discussions with County and State Education Department personnel. The Grand Jury has heard sworn testimony from numerous witnesses during ten days of formal hearings on San Ysidro school issues. Information thus generated, confirming the findings of previous Grand Juries, has resulted in a clear picture of conditions of inappropriate, inadequate actions taken by certain members of the Board of Trustees, some of whom minunderstand their purpose. findings The 1991-1992 Grand Jury concurs with previous juries in that serious problems exist within the San Ysidro School District. In general, the Jury has found that the children of San Ysidro are innocent victims of a philosophical power struggle which permeates the School Board, school administration, the teachers' union and the PTA. At issue, beneath a veneer of educational rhetoric, is which shall dominate the school system: the preservation of Mexican cultural and Spanish language proficiency or assimilation of Mexican-born and other American children into the North American communication and economic systems. The two philosophies are addressed as if they are mutually exclusive. Currently, proficiency in Spanish with the preservation of Mexican culture, at the expense of English learning, is the governing philosophy. Those who disagree do not enjoy the normal position of loyal opposition. Administrators and teachers who do not support the majority Board position are demoted or discharged, if legally possible. Dissenters who have tenure are merely tolerated in an outcast status. A small group of administrators and teachers enjoy the political/philosophical favor of the Board majority and have a special status which is tantamount to ex-officio Board membership. This almost unbelievable situation persists because the Board of Trustees is essentially a town council, perpetuated by a combination of intimidated voters, apathetic non-voters and resident non-citizens. Specifically, the Grand Jury has received evidence and testimony that: 1. The Board of Trustees is a de facto town council with extraordinary influence over numerous facets of life within the San Ysidro community of San Diego. Certain members of the Board exert a pervasive influence over resident voters which exceeds that normally attributed to elected officials. The Trustees' attention and efforts are extended far beyond the educational purposes of the School District. 2. Some Trustees routinely violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Brown Act by conducting majority meetings in closed sessions outside of the time and location of scheduled board meetings, such as through a group called Equality, Justice and Education (EJE). 3. Health and safety needs of children are not being met: a. Playgrounds are badly maintained and present a hazard; b. The District has one certified nurse serving the total school population. 4. The Trustees have conducted personnel transactions, such as hirings, firings, promotions and demotions, without acceptance of counsel from the Superintendent of Schools or from any committee or panel of educational professionals or parents. Some of the results of these practices are: a. There have been five superinendents over the past twelve years. b. Non-Hispanic teachers and administrators are not afforded equal opportunities by the District Board Trustees. c. During the 1990-91 year, the District Board of Trustees demoted three elementary school principals, fired the middle school principal and failed to renew contracts of fourteen probationary teachers. Several of the teachers were bilingual. The District now has eleven teachers working with emergency credentials. These actions were taken without the concurrence of the Superintendent. The three demoted principals have subsequently received judgments totaling $300,000.00. The fired principal received a judgment of more than $200,000.00. The District has paid out at least $1,000,000.00 in judgments and legal fees arising from the ill-conceived and often illegal personnel actions of the Trustees. d. The same improprieties that occurred with personnel in past years continue to exist. During the 1991-92 school year, several administrators at the District's central office have received notices of reassignment. e. Well-qualified bilingual probationary teachers, who happen to be non-Hispanic, are being terminated. f. Several outstanding tenured staff members, including a mentor teacher, have been given unsatisfactory evaluations with no clear justification for such action. g. There have been attempts to initiate recall of Trustees in recent years. Each recall has been challenged by Board counsel before reaching a ballot. The Trustees authorized more than $5,000.00 from the general fund to be used to verify signatures in the recent 1992 recall efforts. These recall attempts have proven costly and divisive to the staff, students and community. h. Some personnel assignments initiated and directed by the Trustees appear to reflect nepotism. When queried on this subject, a Trustee said, ``favoritism, yes; nepotism, no''. A Trustee's son was promoted from Vice-Principal of the Middle School to Principal in mid-term, April 3, 1992. The established selection procedures were not followed. 5. The Board of Trustees, as the only elected body in San Ysidro, has been instrumental in increasing the political and cultural isolation of the community and has retarded integration of children into an English-speaking American society and economy. The almost universally Hispanic ethnicity of the student population makes the English language transition a most difficult objective for the school system. The opposition of the majority of the Trustees to this objective virtually guarantees its failure. 6. The Board has failed to direct or support proper use of funds provided for bilingual education. In several instances, students were placed in the Bilingual Program or English-Only Program, based on space availability, with no regard for parental request or children's needs. We found no transition evaluation for students exiting the Bilingual Program and moving into an English-Only Program. We found no clearly- defined District-wide bilingual curriculum in place. 7. The Board has failed to direct or support compliance with mandated accommodations for the educationally and physically disabled. There is no program for the Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED) within the District, even though students have been identified. The District's solution is to hire individual aides for some SED students. 8. The Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher is used to provide services to non-Special Education Students. This is in violation of the Education Code. 9. The District has violated the rights of Special Education Students' Individualized Education Program (IEP). Every identified Special Education student must have an IEP. 10. Special Education students are misplaced in the Alternative Learning Program (ALP). 11. Reports of child endangerment have been received. At least thirty-nine students from the San Ysidro Middle School were placed on Home Study without due process. a. Approximately twenty-five students were suspended for more than five consecutive days, which is in violation of the Education Code. Alternatives to suspension were not considered or applied. b. Complaints of corporal punishment within the District have not been properly investigated. c. Complaints concerning unprofessional disciplinary methods used at the Middle School have been reported. 12. Complaints of racial discrimination have been made by non-Hispanic students and staff. This involved the inappropriate placement of students and staff. Students complain of racial slurs, name calling and double standards in dress code. 13. The District does not have an Earthquake Preparedness Plan in place. Classrooms are not equipped with required supplies. 14. Complaints were levied by parents and staff members against an administrator for contracting the services of a psychologist who was not credentialed by the State of California. a. The Student Assistant Team (SAT) was not involved in identifying students who might require the services of a psychologist. b. Parents of students seen by this psychologist were not contacted, nor were parent-consent forms signed, as is required. 15. The current President of the Board of Trustees, who is an employee of Casa Familiar, could be in direct conflict of interest, if the District incorporates the Casa Familiar BRAVO Dropout Prevention Program proposed by the President. 16. The Board of Trustees DOES NOT take advantage of available in-service training. 17. Test scores of the San Ysidro students continue to be the lowest in the State of California. conclusions Over the years, the Board, as an elected body, has proven to be highly politicized, serving its own agendas and abrogating the educational rights and privileges of the children of San Ysidro. Children have neither the maturity nor the right of franchise by which they can make informed decisions concerning their future. Students are at the mercy of two groups of self-involved and self-important adults, both dedicated to their own objectives rather than the smooth integration of children into the mainstream of American society and the U.S. economy. One group is preoccupied with maintaining its position of political power in the community through election to the school board. From this and other positions it controls within the school district, this group exerts a pervasive influence over the community which exceeds by far that normally exercised by elected school officials. The other group, for the most part, is made up of members, admittedly or otherwise, of a movement known as EJE who occupy positions on the Board, in administration, in teaching and in the teachers' union. Some are parents of students. These are advocates of a particular course of bilingual education which puts the highest priority on development of a capability in Spanish, at the expense of teaching English. They believe in this with a dedication and zeal which are most threatening to any who dare to disagree. The net result has been and continues to be children unable to communicate. Many of these students drop out after entering high school. The symbiotic alignment of these groups allows them to maintain complete control over everything and everyone within the School District. Non-conformists are demoted, fired or otherwise eliminated from the system. With very few exceptions, non-Spanish speakers are purged from the system, regardless of qualifications or performance. So are those bilingual teachers who consider English proficiency a matter of urgency. Those who favor a ``laissez faire'' solution to the San Ysidro problem--that is, letting the voters correct the situation--do not understand the unique nature of this small, isolated, predominantly Hispanic community. Many of the residents are not citizens. Many of the citizens are not registered voters. Many of the more informed and/or affluent residents have removed their children from the District Schools and placed them elsewhere, legitimately or otherwise, to ensure their preparation for high school. Many of the residents are intimidated by the ruling coalition. Many have testified before the Grand Jury about vicious retribution for campaigning for any opposition. Only the bravest of the residents dare to oppose. Some of the problems appear to stem from violations of State laws, and partial solutions may result from actions initiated by the District Attorney and/or State educational licensing authorities. However, if the situation in San Ysidro is to be corrected permanently, approval of pending legislation and the intervention of the State Superintendent of Schools will be required. There is no logical reason for a separate school district in San Ysidro. San Ysidro is within the City of San Diego and should have the management and resource capabilities of the San Diego Unified School District available to support its children's educational needs. As an alternative, the District could be merged into the South Bay or Chula Vista School Districts. The heart of the matter is that the children need a system run by professionally capable and idealistically balanced leadership. They don't have it now, and the controlling political interests in San Ysidro are not about to provide it. In the meantime, more aggressive participation in seeking a solution by the County Superintendent of Schools, the Councilman representing San Ysidro and the appropriate State Legislators might better convey to the State Superintendent the urgent need for decisive action. It is the conclusion of this Grand Jury that the Trustees of the San Ysidro School Board are fully aware of the deleterious effects on education of their policies and practices. They need only observe the dismal test scores (in both English and Spanish). However, they are either unable or unwilling to make remedial changes. The Jury further considers that the Board can and will prevent solutions by other persons or agencies as long as it exists in its present form. It should be noted that many of these conclusions are totally consistent with those of prior Grand Jury reports, even though attained through completely independent studies. The fact that the Board is elected is immaterial. Letting nature take its course will not lead to correction at the hands of the voters. Despite the strong protests of many parents and teachers, the combination of an attitude which comes from a patronage system and voter apathy will perpetuate the status quo unless outside authorities take action. There is a clear need for legal authority to rescue an oppressed minority--the school children--and protect their rights under the law. There are those in San Ysidro who argue that no one, including the Grand Jury, should interfere in matters that involve only the residents of San Ysidro. The members of the Grand Jury do not agree with this line of reasoning. Citizens support legal intervention to protect children from clear and present danger of physical or emotional abuse at the hands of adults. Likewise, they should support intervention to eliminate the willful retardation of the educational process and the resulting economic disenfranchisement of the students. The State Department of Education is mandated to take over any school district which is financially bankrupt. There is pending legislation (SB 171 Focus School) which will mandate State intervention for an academically at-risk school district. The San Ysidro School District with the lowest test scores in California would certainly be a candidate for State intervention. The San Ysidro School District on the brink of financial bankruptcy is already educationally bankrupt. recommendations The Grand Jury recommends that: County Board of Supervisors #92/120: Exert all possible influence through established governmental liaison to: a. Support whatever proposed legislation would facilitate intervention by state and/or local authorities in situation such as that in the San Ysidro School District. b. Petition the California Superintendent of Schools to intervene immediately in the operation of schools in the San Ysidro School District. San Diego County District Attorney #92/121: Investigate alleged violations of State laws by Trustees, administrators and teachers for possible prosecution and/or accusation. San Diego County Superintendent of Schools #92/122: Petition the California Superintendent of Schools to intervene in the operation of San Ysidro schools and to conduct whatever audits and investigations are required to validate and cause correction of serious deficiencies and code violations. #92/123: Assist the San Ysidro Superintendent of Schools in any way possible to minimize the harmful effects of current practice. San Diego City Council #92/124: Address the San Ysidro School District situation as a serious problem within its city. #92/126: Exert all possible influence on the California Superintendent of Schools to take urgent measures to correct the situation in the San Ysidro School District. #92/126: Support legislation which would permit timely corrective action in situations such as that in the San Ysidro School District. Councilman, Eighth District, City of San Diego #92/127: Demonstrate active involvement in the San Ysidro School District problem and express concern publicly for the critical situation which exists for the children and their future. Bring public awareness to the fact that this is a serious situation but not a racial issue. While the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over the officials listed below, the following recommendations are submitted with the request that they receive consideration (these recommendations are also subjects of separate correspondence). The Grand Jury recommends that: Secretary of Education #92/128: Require a thorough audit of federally funded categorical programs within the San Ysidro School District to include: a. Bilingual Education b. Special Education c. Independent Study d. Student Home Study e. Alternative Learning Program California superintendent of schools #92/129: Assign a trustee to oversee operations of the San Ysidro School District until serious deficiencies and violations of the Education Code are corrected. #92/130: Investigate and evaluate the use of health aides in lieu of certified nurses by the District. #92/131: Direct the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, through its Legal and Professional Standards Division, to review allegations of misconduct by a San Ysidro School administrator and teachers and examine irregularities in selection and appointment practices. #92/132: Conduct a fiscal audit of categorically funded programs, to include: (a) Bilingual Education (b) Special Education (c) Independent Study (d) Student Home Study (e) Alternative Learning Program

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I think the sad part about it is America and this Congress knows that if it was not election year, we would not have gotten three-quarters of Congress supporting what the American people are demanding. We operate a welfare system in this society that we would not do to our own children. But we justify it under the guise of being merciful. It would be illegal for us to do to our own children what we do on welfare. We pay underage children to live alone and send them a check. If you and I did that to our own children, it would not only be child abandonment, it would be child abuse. But there are those here who claim they care about the children and hide behind the words they care about the children when in fact what they are doing is government-subsidized child abuse. Tonight we had a great victory, and the American people had the great victory of making politics work for the American people, changing the system. I worry that without the American people keeping a clear message in the next election, that there are those who will try to go back to the old, worn-out, corrupt systems of the old Washington rather than moving forward with the integrity of the new majority. Mr. Kingston. Let me reclaim the time just to yield to the president of the freshman class that has made all these changes possible. We are closing our discussion of illegal immigration, drug use, higher wages, lower taxes and, of course, welfare reform. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].

Mr. BILBRAY. If the gentleman will yield, I think the word was used quite appropriately, ``integrity.'' There are those that have been in this town for a long time who think that the freshmen and the new majority is somehow radical because we have brought with us from mainstream America the concept of integrity, that words without commitment, words without action, words that are said without the intent to perform lack integrity. And yet there are those in Washington who are terrified of the 73 freshmen who came here and said, I will not sacrifice either my integrity personally or the integrity of the commitment to the people of the United States. Frankly, I have to sort of chuckle at the fact that Washington is so terrified of a group that is finally bringing some integrity to the House floor. I want to say this about the welfare reform. I served as the chairman of San Diego County, which has a welfare system larger than 32 States in the Union. We in 1978 proposed a concept that at that time they called cruel and mean-spirited. That concept in 1978 was workfare. Every bureaucrat and every obstructionist tried to stop us from executing a concept that would bring dignity back into the public assistance programs. When we were fighting on things like welfare fraud, as an administrator I looked at it, at the cards and said ``There is not even a picture on the ID. Let's put a picture on the ID.'' Common sense. Washington said no, because they said it would violate the privacy of the welfare recipient. These are just a few of many stories where every time you try to do something right with welfare, Washington stood in the way. Tonight we finally brought the integrity of the system before the American people and said if you want to promise that we are going to change welfare as we know it, then you have got to have the guts to change it.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make a decision on an issue of great importance first and foremost to our marine environment, but also to the process by which we will craft the environmental and public health policies of the future. We have a choice between the status quo, which would focus solely on one issue at the expense of others which are equally important, and a comprehensive, forward- looking agreement which will carry strong dolphin and marine protection policies well into the next century. If we are truly interested in progressive, outcome-based environmental policy, then H.R. 2823 must serve as a cornerstone of that policy foundation. Over the last decade, great strides have been made in reducing dolphin mortality rates in the eastern tropical Pacific [ETP], as a result of improved and innovative tuna fishing methods pioneered by the U.S. tuna fleet, and stepped-up levels of on-vessel observer monitoring. These improvements were reflected in the landmark La Jolla Agreement of 1992, a voluntary resolution entered into by a number of tuna fishing nations, including the United States, Mexico, and several Latin American countries. This agreement established strict and declining levels of annual dolphin mortality rates, requiring that an annual overall rate of less than 5,000 be achieved by 1999, which is less than 0.1 percent of the estimated total dolphin population. This program has been so effective that it has already achieved a rate of below 4,000 annually, which is considered by scientists to be below levels of biological significance. I have an article that elaborates further on this point, Mr. Chairman, which I would ask to be entered into the Record along with my statement, but I would like to read one passage from it at this point. These remarks come from Dr. James Joseph, who is the director of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC]: Joseph said the dolphin mortality rate is now so low that it cannot affect the survival of any of the dolphin species ``The dolphins increase at a rate of from 2.5% to 3.5% per year. The mortality for every (dolphin) stock is less than one-tenth of 1 percent,'' he said. In other words, a great many more young dolphins are born and survive each year than die in tuna nets. There are about 9.5 million dolphins in Eastern Pacific populations in all, and none of their several species--including common, spinner, and spotted--is endangered. ``We continue to take the approach that we can bring it (dolphin mortality) lower, and we continue to work in that direction. It is essential that we keep all of the countries involved in the fishery cooperating in our program,'' Joseph said. The La Jolla Agreement also required that observers be posted on each licensed vessel, which were each assigned strict dolphin mortality limits [DML]. To date, the signatories have continued to operate in good faith to protect dolphin in the course of harvesting tuna under this nonbinding agreement; however, some nations had openly considered dropping out of the La Jolla Agreement and the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission, its umbrella organization, because despite the advances made in reducing dolphin mortality rates, U.S. law had not been changed to lift the existing embargoes on tuna imported into the United States. However, H.R. 2823, if enacted, would provide the incentives for these other fishing nations to want to remain involved in the IATTC and continue to fish for tuna in a dolphin-sensitive fashion, rather than ``leaving the table'' and reverting to older and more dolphin-unsafe fishing methods. In addition to this threat of retreat from vastly improved dolphin protection practices, biological problems of significant dimensions have arisen as a result of alternative ``nondolphin'' fishing methods now in use due to the existing restrictions to setting tuna nets ``on dolphin''. Such methods include setting nets around tuna attracted to floating objects--log fishing--or around free-swimming schools of fish--school fishing. While these methods do reduce direct contact with dolphin, they create other problems. Studies indicate that up to 25 percent of volume of these harvest methods is ``bycatch'' of other species, including high volumes of sharks, billfish, and other pelagics, endangered sea turtles, and immature tuna. These young tuna are not market-ready, and are largely dead by the time they are returned to the sea. This wasteful depletion of juvenile tuna poses a serious threat to maintaining healthy, long-term populations of yellowfin tuna, in addition to stressing the populations of these other sensitive species. Conversely, setting tuna nets ``on dolphin'' creates little bycatch other than the dolphin themselves. While this was problematic--and lethal--for dolphin in past years, recent improvements in tuna harvest methods, such as the ``backing down'' procedure, in which the edge of the nets are allowed to swim below the surface, affording dolphins the opportunity to leave the net, have served to greatly minimize the threat to dolphin. In addition, small boats and a number of divers are often deployed within the net to assist dolphin out of danger. However, the problem of bycatch underscores a policy dilemma, as to how best to manage our marine resources on an ``ecosystem'' basis, rather than channeling all our energy and resources into ``single population'' strategies. While it is clearly essential that we continue to work to reduce dolphin mortality rates toward zero, this cannot and should not occur at the expense of other parts of our ocean biosystem, Fortunately, in H.R. 2823, we have a long-term solution before us today which will resolve the challenges, both environmental and economic, which we now face. In October 1995, 12 nations, including the United States, met in Panama to craft a binding international agreement to protect dolphin and other species in the eastern tropical Pacific. Five major environmental organizations were instrumental in developing this agreement, which been dubbed the Panama Declaration. The declaration will establish a permanent mortality limit, with the goal of zero dolphin mortality in that fishery. It will set mortality caps for individual species of dolphin, and provide for individual vessel accountability by establishing strict per vessel mortality caps. Just as important, the Panama Declaration provides greater study of and protection for other now at risk from ``bycatch'', and increase internationally enforceable monitoring systems to ensure compliance by participating nations who wish to fish in the ETP. The Panama Declaration, which will be codified into law by enactment of H.R. 2823, creates a binding and enforceable process to ensure continued declining rates of dolphin mortality, while for the first time adopting an ``ecosystem-based'' approach to ocean resource management. While there is absolutely no question that dolphin populations must and will continue to be protected and strengthened under the progressive strategies of this legislation, we can no longer ignore the potentially harmful problems which have been inadvertently created by our existing ``dolphin-safe'' policies. The Panama Declaration, in the form of H.R. 2823, should be codified into law, in order to ensure that we manage our marine resources to protect all species, in a sound and science-based manner. We must reject efforts, however well-intended, to reinforce the status quo, and move swiftly to enact the provisions of this legislation. H.R. 2823, which I have cosponsored along with a great number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, is the vehicle to achieve this, and I would urge all my colleagues to lend their support to this progressive measure. This is more than sound ocean resources management. It is a blueprint for how we should proceed on future environmental strategy matters. This is an opportunity for us to move beyond the outdated ``single species'' approach of years past, and embrace more comprehensive, inclusive, and effective multispecies conservation management style. We have to be able to see the whole picture, and assemble our strategies accordingly. The increased loss of other marine life and sensitive species to ``bycatch'' under existing law has to date been largely overlooked, and is a looming biological threat which certainly merits the same levels of concern and proper scientific attention as has our dolphin population. These unintended consequences are indeed troubling, and will be comprehensively addressed by the Panama Declaration and H.R. 2823. We have created the technology and the incentives to keep dolphin mortality at insignificant and declining levels, which will be reinforced and locked in by H.R. 2823. However, protection for the dolphin is not the ``end of the story'' for conserving our ocean environment. It is also not the end of our responsibilities. As we have done with other strategies, we must take a comprehensive approach to marine conservation as well, in order to identify and understand these threats, and take action on them before they reach a crisis point. If we are truly interested in progressive, outcome-based environmental policy, guided by science, then we should embrace this bipartisan proposal, which is supported by the U.S. tuna fleet, the Clinton administration, and a number of major environmental groups. As we move into the next century, we should lead with an environmental strategy which reflects the level of scientific knowledge we have now, not what we knew 15 or 20 years ago. This bill keeps dolphins safe, and will help us avoid future problems with marine conservation. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1996. [From the San Diego Union Tribune, June 7, 1996] Scientist Hailed for Saving Dolphins (By Steve La Rue) Dolphin deaths in tuna fishing nets have declined by about 98 percent since 1986 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and a San Diego marine scientist will get a large share of the credit tonight when he receives San Diego Oceans Foundation's highest award. The annual Roger Revelle Perpetual Award will be presented to James Joseph, director of the La Jolla-based Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission since 1969. With Joseph at the helm, the eight-nation commission has mounted a sustained effort to reduce drowning deaths of dolphins in tuna fishing nets. Its success could help unlock a decades-old environmental dispute and end a U.S. embargo on tuna caught by boats from Mexico and other countries that look for the popular fish under dolphin schools. Large tuna often swim under schools of dolphins in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for reasons that are not entirely understood. Fishing boats historically have encircled these surface-swimming schools with their nets, cinched the nets shut at the bottom, then reeled in their catch. Air-breathing dolphins drowned in vast numbers, because they were snared in the nets and dragged under water. An estimated 133,174 dolphins died this way in 1986, but the total fell to an estimated 3,274 last year, according to the commission. The decline has come through a variety of measures, including placement of observers on every tuna boat in the Eastern Pacific, newer equipment for some boats, better training of tuna crews and captains, special attention to individual boats with high-dolphin kills and other measures. Joseph said the dolphin mortality level is now so low that it cannot affect the survival of any of the dolphin species. The dolphins increase at a rate of from 2.5 to 3.5 percent per year. The mortality for every (dolphin) stock as a percentage of every stock is less than one-tenth of 1 percent,'' he said. In other words, a great deal more young dolphins are born and survive each year than die in tuna nets. There are about 9.5 million dolphins in Eastern Pacific populations in all, and none of their several species--including common, spinner and spotted dolphins--is endangered. ``We continue to take the approach that we can bring it lower, and we continue to work in that direction. It is essential that we keep all of the countries involved in this fishery cooperating in our program,'' Joseph said. Commission members include Costa Rica, France, Nicaragua, Panama, the United States; the Pacific island-nation of Vanuatu and Venezuela. Frank Powell, executive director of Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute and last year's award winner, praised Joseph in a prepared statement as ``A first-class biologist who has devoted his entire career to the ocean. He has been instrumental in reducing the number of dolphin fatalities related to tuna fishing.'' The award--a wood sculpture of a garibaldi fish that remains in Scripps Bank's La Jolla office--will be present tonight at the San Diego Oceans Foundation benefit dinner. The foundation is a volunteer organization committed to preserving San Diego's bays and ocean waters. The Roger Revelle Perpetual Award is named for the late scientist who was founder of UCSD and director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Lowering the dolphin kill also was a prelude to the introduction of proposed federal legislation to allow tuna caught by setting nets around dolphin schools to be sold in the United States as ``dolphin-safe''--but only if the commission's on-board observers certify that no dolphins were killed. Under current law, no tuna can be sold as ``dolphin-safe'' is this country if they are caught by setting nets around dolphin schools. The issue also has split environmental groups. Greenpeace, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Wildlife Federation support the proposed law. The Earth Island Institute, the Sierra Club, the Human Society of the United States, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals oppose it. Because of the current law and other factors, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, which once numbered 110 vessels and was prominent in San Diego, has shrunk to 40 vessels operating in the Western Pacific and 10 in the Eastern Pacific. The Earth Island Institute said in a statement that the legislation would allow ``Foreign tuna stained by the blood of dolphins to be sold on U.S. supermarket shelves'' and allow ``chasing, harassing, injuring, and encircling dolphins as long as no dolphins were `observed' being killed outright.''

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully have to oppose the Studds amendment, and I would like to clarify that. I oppose the amendment because it locks us into the old concepts of species management that might have served us well in the seventies and the eighties, but is totally deficient for the latter part of the nineties and going into the next century. Mr. Chairman, one of the great accomplishments that we are seeing this decade is the movement from single-species management to multispecies management when it comes to environmental protection. This amendment would lead us back into single-species management. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone who originally supported this legislation meant to endanger sensitive marine species or to encourage, if not mandate, fishing practices that would directly and negatively impact different species, including endangered species. The loss of endangered sea turtles as a result of the present alternative to this legislation, H.R. 2823, the main bill, was, I think, totally unforeseen back in the 1970's and the 1980's, and new science says that we need to address this. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to make this a battle between Flipper and the Ninja Turtles; that we are going to have to choose between porpoises and billfish, or dolphins and endangered turtles. I think there is a proper way to do this, and one of the ways is to direct our fishing practices in a manner that would facilitate protection of multiple species, as H.R. 2823 would do. This amendment would strike that concept and move us back to the era of the 1970's and 1980's; the old concept that we will only look at one species rather than the entire environment. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues consider the fact that both Vice President Gore and Greenpeace, among others, recognize that it is time to move forward and be more progressive and more global in our approach to ocean species management. America must lead, but we cannot do this alone, and species management cannot be done appropriately when focused only on one species or subspecies. This amendment would move us back to that position, that would hamstring us in addressing these protection issues in a comprehensive manner. So I would ask the supporters of the motion to recognize its unintentional but negative impact to endangered marine species, and to reflect on the facts which are that this Studds amendment does not address the concerns that we need to address to definitely protect dolphins and other ocean animals.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting evening. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the amendment. It is actually not in my district but it is adjoining my district. To be really blunt about it, the people in my district along the coast are really kind of tired of seeing the damage and the carnage occurring in Mr. Filner's district through floods caused by an international agreement and actually the damage flushing down into my district. Frankly, I will say this, though it is not my district, I personally rescued drowning livestock and drowning illegal aliens who have been stranded in this situation that has been cruel and with a great loss of life because of this situation. Mr. Chairman, this is not a local problem and it is not a natural problem that Mr. Filner is speaking about here. This is a problem that has been created through the actions of the United States Government in conjunction with the Mexican Government. Both the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which created the International Boundary and Water Commission and the cooperative efforts on projects that have related to that treaty are directly related to this flooding. The flooding that has occurred has been a direct product of the channelization on the Mexican side with the support and the subsidy of the United States Government. The dam at Rodriguez is a dam that was built in the 1930's and the 1940's with the subsidies and the treaty of the U.S. Government. The problem that Mr. Filner's district is incurring at this time is a direct responsibility of the U.S. Government. It is one that we can not walk away from. It is one that is not just a responsibility to Mr. Filner's district but it is also a responsibility that we bear signing treaties with a foreign government, the Republic of Mexico, that we would address the flooding problems that occurred because of their channelization and the improvements on their side of the border. I would just ask both sides of the aisle to recognize that this is not a situation of nature flooding Mr. Filner's district. This is an issue of a breakdown along international boundaries, of Federal intervention without completing a project. There has been problems that have occurred in this area, Mr. Chairman, that were unforeseen. We all accept that. But I just ask you that, because they were unforeseen, you do not treat them as if they are nonexistent. I ask this body to address this problem. It does not relay only on Mr. Filner's people to address this problem. They did not have the authority to make the decision for these treaties or to build these projects. That responsibility and that right rests with us in the Federal Government. Thus, the problems that have occurred because of those problems rest with us today. I ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. I believe that we must begin to explore ways to look beyond the traditional model of combating discrimination, which is currently accomplished by protecting a class or category of people. Instead, we must begin to pass laws which protect the individual from discrimination. A person's singular worth and merit should be the yardstick we measure by, rather than a person's behavior or characteristics which attach them to a group. If we predicate discrimination law on distinctions between groups or categories, we negate the original intention of protecting against discrimination itself. Therefore, I am introducing the Workplace Fairness Act of 1996, which will effectively prohibit discrimination on any basis other than an employee's individual merit. Instead of continuing a piece-meal approach to discrimination law by adding special categories to those now protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, my legislation ensures that the only factors which employers may consider are those pertaining to job performance. While this may be considered a radical approach to employment law, it is only fair that all employees are duly protected under the law, and not subject to being fired for arbitrary reasons. Without a legislative remedy such as this, Congress is going to be faced with the dilemma of adding special categories to those already protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, every time it is believed that a certain class is being unjustly treated. This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker, but will left-handed people be added to the list next? What about red-headed people? Under current law, such cases could indeed be made. Let us consider the logical evolution and consequences of this approach. Specifically, the Workplace Fairness Act prohibits discrimination in a blanket fashion, rather than establishing newly protected classes in addition to those which already exist. It does so by establishing that employers shall not subject any employee to different standards or treatment in connection with employment or employment opportunities on any basis other than that of factors pertaining to job performance. My legislation defines ``factors pertaining to job performance,'' which include employment history, ability and willingness to comply with performance requirements--including attendance and procedures--of the job in question, educational background, drug and alcohol use which may adversely affect job performance, criminal records, and conflicts of interest. The Workplace Fairness Act establishes that merit is the sole criterion for consideration in job applications or interviews, hiring decisions, advancement, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition or privilege of employment. Additionally, those currently protected under title VII of the Civil Rights Act will still be able to seek redress upon enactment of the Workplace Fairness Act, as my legislation avails existing title VII remedies to any individual discriminated against under my bill. My legislation also exempts religious organizations, prohibits the establishment of quotas on any basis other than factors pertaining to job performance, and specifically does not invalidate or limit the rights, remedies or procedures available under any other existing Federal, State or local law to persons claiming discrimination. Under the Workplace Fairness Act, employers and employees will still be allowed to enter into an alternate dispute resolution agreed upon before the term of employment begins, just as under current law. Further, the existing Federal statute in rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure states that if a frivolous lawsuit is filed by the plaintiff--the employee or prospective employee--than the court may rule that the plaintiff may pay the legal expenses of the defendant-- the employer. Additionally, rule 68 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is enforced in civil rights cases such as those that would be brought about under the Workplace Fairness Act. Rule 68 states that the fee burden can be shifted from the employer to the employee, if the employee files a frivolous claim, or if the employer is found to not be at fault. While my legislation will clarify once and for all the civil rights of all Americans, it still gives employers adequate flexibility in determining who they wish to hire, and ensures that they provide just cause for termination that is unrelated to job performance. Discrimination law should mirror the goal which it is intended to embody. Our laws should reflect a standard governed by individual merit, not by an individual's relation to a defined group. The image of a discrimination-free society is undermined by a society whose laws supersede the value of those they are intended to protect: the individual. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my legislation, and build upon our past successes by creating a new model to combat discrimination in America.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. I believe that we must begin to explore ways to look beyond the traditional model of combatting discrimination, which is currently accomplished by protecting a class or category of people. Instead, we must begin to pass laws which protect the individual from discrimination. A person's singular worth and merit should be the yardstick we measure by, rather than a person's behavior or characteristics which attach them to a group. If we predicate discrimination law on distinctions between groups or categories, we negate the original intention of protecting against discrimination itself. Therefore, I am introducing the Workplace Fairness Act of 1996, which will effectively prohibit discrimination on any basis other than an employee's individual merit. Instead of continuing a piecemeal approach to discrimination law by adding special categories to those now protected under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, my legislation ensures that the only factors which employers may consider are those pertaining to job performance. While this may be considered a radical approach to employment law, it is only fair that all employees are duly protected under the law, and not subject to being fired for arbitrary reasons. Without a legislative remedy such as this, Congress is going to be faced with the dilemma of adding special categories to those already protected under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, every time it is believed that a certain class is being unjustly treated. This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker, but will left-handed people be added to the list next? What about red-headed people? Under current law, such cases could indeed be made. Let us consider the logical evolution and consequence of this approach. Specifically, the Workplace Fairness Act prohibits discrimination in a blanket fashion, rather than establishing newly protected classes in addition to those which already exist. It does so by establishing that employers shall not subject any employee to different standards or treatment in connection with employment or employment opportunities on any basis other than that of factors pertaining to job performance. My legislation defines factors pertaining to job performance, which include employment history, ability and willingness to comply with performance requirements--including attendance and procedures--of the job in question, educational background, drug and alcohol use which may adversely affect job performance, criminal records, and conflicts of interest. The Workplace Fairness Act establishes that merit is the sole criterion for consideration in job applications or interviews, hiring decisions, advancement, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition or privilege of employment. Additionally, those currently protected under title VII of the Civil Rights Act will still be able to seek redress upon enactment of the Workplace Fairness Act, as my legislation avails existing title VII remedies to any individual discriminated against under my bill. My legislation also exempts religious organizations, prohibits the establishment of quotas on any basis other than factors pertaining to job performance, and specifically does not invalidate or limit the rights, remedies or procedures available under any other existing Federal, State, or local law to persons claiming discrimination. Under the Workplace Fairness Act, employers and employees will still be allowed to enter into an alternate dispute resolution agreed upon before the term of employment begins, just as under current law. Further, the existing Federal statute in rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure states that if a frivolous lawsuit is filed by the plaintiff, the employee or prospective employee, than the court may rule that the plaintiff may pay the legal expenses of the defendant-- the employer. Additionally, rule 68 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is enforced in civil rights cases such as those that would be brought about under the Workplace Fairness Act. Rule 68 states that the fee burden can be shifted from the employer to the employee, if the employee files a frivolous claim, or if the employer is found to not be at fault. While my legislation will clarify once and for all the civil rights of all Americans, it still gives employers adequate flexibility in determining who they wish to hire, and ensures that they provide just cause for termination that is unrelated to job performance. Discrimination law should mirror the goal which it is intended to embody. Our laws should reflect a standard governed by individual merit, not by an individual's relation to a defined group. The image of a discrimination-free society is undermined by a society whose laws supercede the value of those they are intended to protect: the individual. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my legislation, and build upon our past successes by creating a new model to combat discrimination in America.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my dear colleague from San Diego, both of my colleagues from San Diego, and I am going to get in the middle of this family feud. I would ask every Member here and every Member who is watching on C-SPAN, do you hear what is going on? We are talking about trying to have commerce in the good things that we all talk about everything in this country. But here you have two colleagues that have districts side by side, and because of the uncontrolled situation along our frontiers, because not all American soil seems to be created equally. It does not appear to be by this Congress or other Congresses, because we are in a situation now to where a railroad is threatened because we do not have control of U.S. soil and we are not going to see the commerce and the prosperity that we should see in certain parts of this country, because America and the Federal Government has not taken care of a problem. I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], does the gentleman know what I would like to see this study say? Not what is going to be the problems, but what can the greatest Nation in the history of the world that travels all around the world to defend and secure the national sovereignty of everybody else, what can we do to make the NAFTA train of the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] safe and prosperous? That is what our study should say. I just ask every one of my colleagues as they go back to the July 4 recess, go back to your districts and think about the fact that the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] are going to go back to their neighborhoods and their neighborhood is not as secure and as safe from foreign intrusion as everyone else in this country should be and presume to be.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, while I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 272, when voting by electronic device, my vote was unfortunately recorded as ``aye.'' amendment no. 46 offered by mr. shays

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for addressing this issue in such an open manner. This bill represents a triumph for commonsense and science-based environmental strategies; it focuses on the product, rather than the process, and values the outcome of the regulations above the regulations themselves. Our bill will refocus our priorities toward the most immediate threats to the public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater flexibility in how they can administer this act, and place new emphasis on making sure that public water systems have the technical and financial resources they need to meet the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I can't emphasize enough the progressiveness of this bipartisan bill--we moving forward toward a need and outcome-based strategy, and working together in cooperation instead of confrontation. This will help us to better serve the public health needs of the American people, and provide us all with a cleaner and safer environment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included in the Record and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 3604, the bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, which will achieve for the American people vast improvements over the existing inflexibilities of the existing outdated Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. This reauthorization of the SDWA will provide a commonsense, science-based blueprint for how to most effectively determine and implement the regulation and protection of our drinking water supply. This bill will be a significant step forward, away from an outdated and ineffective process that places higher value on the regulation itself, toward a more progressive and outcome-based process which will allow us to best serve the public health needs of the American people. I am very proud to have been able to play a close role in strengthening and improving such an important statute as the SDWA. These amendments will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in how the SDWA is implemented. H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's resources toward those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater flexibility in administering the law, and place new emphasis on ensuring that public water systems have the necessary technical, managerial, and financial resources available to comply with the SDWA. Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant at the time of their inception--in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not been reauthorized since 1986. However, the passage of time invariably exposes weaknesses or shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes. In the past, it has often been easier to confront problems by simply blaming a law, instead of focusing closely on whether the law in question is being properly implemented, or whether it is still effective in serving its intended purpose. These laws need to be as dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing environments we intend for them to protect. This means that occasionally such laws must be revisited and renewed, in order to reflect its original goals. I firmly believe that we ought not to cling to the conventional wisdom that our public health and environmental laws are ``set in stone,'' and incapable of being improved. In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the responsibility to see to it that when modern science and technology can be applied to improve these laws, we act to do so. Many of our crown jewel environmental laws were written over 20 years ago, and it is incumbent upon us to make these needed improvements when necessary. With this comprehensive reauthorization, we complete a challenging but needed task on behalf of all of our constituents nationwide, and I commend my chairman, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis and my other colleagues who worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to bring us to this point. There are two aspects of this bill which are of particular interest to me, and upon which I would like to elaborate. Under current law, there is no standard for radon that occurs in drinking water. H.R. 3604 requires that, within 3 years, EPA must promulgate a standard for radon in drinking water using the new standard setting provisions of the bill, which require the use of the best available science and the risk assessment process. I had several specific concerns about this provision, due to the unique challenges radon presents as a contaminant in our environment. Radon is an odorless, colorless gas which occurs naturally, and rises from the soil. Man has been exposed to varying levels of radon since the beginning of time, which makes it more difficult to focus on ample margins of safety within the context of the SDWA. Because it is a natural element, there is no way to alter its occurrence level in outdoor air, which is where humans receive their greatest exposure to radon. My concerns were that under this provision, it could be feasible for the EPA to promulgate a standard for radon which would require water systems to treat for radon in drinking water at a level well below the level of radon which is already occurring in ambient air; in other words, focusing considerable financial resources on mitigating a relatively small percentage of our total overall exposure to radon. For small water systems especially, such a scenario could result in scarce financial resources being diverted from other, more pressing health considerations, such as crytosporidium and other microbial contaminants. Additionally, since radon occurs at widely varying levels across the country, I was concerned that by allowing up to 3 years for the EPA to set a standard, areas which might have a more immediate need to address radon occurrence might not be provided with a standard as swiftly as could be. During our committee's consideration of the SDWA bill, I prepared an amendment to assist in these discussions with my colleagues, and which I was prepared to offer to the bill. It would have required EPA to link its level of treatment of radon occurring in water to the level of radon occurrence in ambient air; as mentioned previously, I believe it is important to consider the overall exposure risk of any potential contaminant, including radon. Additionally, providing EPA with this kind of direction would enable them to establish a standard faster, for areas that might have higher occurrence levels. Finally, my amendment would have specified that States may set more restrictive levels for radon, if it were determined that such a level would provide more health protection than the Federal standard. I ultimately chose to not offer the amendment, opting to focus instead on working on a dialog to address this with other of my colleagues who shared my concerns, and which I am confident will continue as this bill moves into conference. Clearly, radon is a complicated part of the SDWA puzzle. I worked closely with several Members, including my California colleague, Henry Waxman, to try and find a solution which would address these radon question adequately. We were able to recognize and identify several potential alternatives, and discussions as to how to best implement them will no doubt continue as we move into the conference committee. I would point out that these discussions were on several occasions mistakenly and inaccurately labeled as attempts to weaken the bill's radon standards. In truth, those of us here in Congress who have some experience in administering public health programs, myself included, are intent on providing the best possible strategies for protecting the public health, and our dialog was focused on that goal alone. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, there is one section of the bill of which I am particularly proud. Section 410 of H.R. 3604 consists of language from a bill I introduced last year--H.R. 2601--to require that Federal standards for bottled water keep pace with our standards for tapwater. Because bottled water is considered a food item, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] regulates its production and sale to protect the public health. The EPA, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over public drinking water standards. However, the FDA has not always been timely in issuing its regulations for elements in bottled water, after EPA has published its regulations for the same elements in public drinking water. As an example, on December 1, 1994, FDA published a final rule for 35 elements in bottled water; however, nearly 4 years earlier, EPA had issued its regulations for the same elements in public drinking water. My language will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a maximum contaminant level for tapwater, and any FDA regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant take effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation within a realistic timeframe established by section 410, the regulation established by the EPA for that element in tapwater will be considered the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled water. This will provide consumers with the health assurances that the water they can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards as their tapwater. Mr. Speaker, I have several supporting documents which I would like to have inserted into the Record along with my statement. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of San Diego, we are fortunate to already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our drinking water; a study by a national environmental group found that water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health advisories over the last 3 years. By comparison, the same study found that an alarmingly high percentage of water systems in some regions of the country--including Washington, D.C.--reported health advisories or compliance failures during the same time period. Our safe drinking water amendments will strengthen existing law, and help bring these high levels of health and environmental quality which we appreciate in San Diego to other communities nationwide. Again, and I can't emphasize it enough, this is a progressive step forward, away from a 1970's-era process which places higher value on process and regulation itself, toward a more responsible and outcome-based approach which focuses on the product that is generated. This will help us reinforce our common goals of better serving the public health needs of the American people, and providing us with a cleaner and safer overall environment. County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health, San Diego, CA, June 24, 1996. Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, Congressman, 49th District, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Bilbray: This letter is in response to your request to provide technical input regarding draft language that you may propose related to the maximum contaminant level [MCL] for radon in drinking water. The Department of Environmental Health supports efforts to establish a maximum contaminant level [MCL] for radon in drinking water that is based on an analysis of the hazards that radon poses to human health. Your proposed amendment is based on the Conference of Radiation Control Program's recommendation to establish a realistic standard for radon in drinking water. We concur with this recommendation. It has been estimated that the nationwide average concentration of radon in groundwater is 351 pci, but ranges from 24 pci to 10,000 pci. Establishing the level at 200 pci is not practical. In order to reduce radon levels to 200 pci, the water must be treated. One treatment method, using granulated activated carbon filters, produces a radioactive waste. The cost of homeowners and water districts could be significant. The significant routes of exposure, the risks of those exposures, and the available water treatment technologies to reduce those risks should all be considered in the establishment of an MCL that protects public health. The literature is lacking information on the ingestion health effects of radon. Therefore, we recommend that further studies be conducted to define this hazard. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call me at (619) 338-2211. Sincerely, Daniel J. Avera, Director, Department of Environmental Health.

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I appreciate the chairman supporting it because this will be a downpayment, a new innovative way of implementing our species management. This is multi-species management. It is the next progressive step in preserving endangered species. I think we may all disagree about different tactics, but the goal should be the same, supporting the species. This act will help to pay for that new strategy and will show that we can truly update our approach and instead of being punitive and confrontational with many of our approaches like we have in the past, we are being cooperative and actually progressive with this. I strongly support my colleague's amendment on this side. I thank him very much for those of us that have worked over 5 years at moving to multispecies management of our endangered species.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. I rise today in support of the funding in this bill for California Natural Communities Conservation Planning [NCCP] program. The fiscal year 1997 Interior appropriations bill, which will be considered by the subcommittee this afternoon, contains $5 million for the program. I would also like to support the amendment offered by my California colleague Rep. Ken Calvert. His amendment will shift $1 million from the Forest Service General Administration Account to the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. By cutting bureaucracy, the Calvert amendment will further our goals for protecting and preserving sensitive species in southern California. The NCCP pilot program in southern California is the Nation's most advanced cooperative approach. The program was initiated 5 years ago as an attempt to create a multispecies approach to preserving species. By increasing funding in the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, Rep. Calvert's amendment will help us to fund the NCCP at the administration's requested level. Even in a time of unprecedented fiscal constraints, I would like to commend Interior Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Regula for recognizing the merit of this process and supporting the program. The NCCP represents the future of conservation, and it is a giant leap forward over the historical project-by-project, command and control methods of most environmental strategies. The system we have in place now sets us up for confrontation, conflict, and gridlock. The NCCP will replace that system and create a framework for comprehensive conservation planning to protect natural resources and sensitive species in southern California while allowing for reasonable growth. The NCCP is part of a collaborative effort between Federal, State, and local officials, as well as land owners and environmental groups. The planning process' goal is to protect a variety of species and sensitive natural habitats, to prevent the need to list other species in the future as endangered, and allow growth and economic development to occur in balance with sound resource conservation. The NCCP includes conservation and development plans for nine separate areas within the southern California planning region. Again, I urge support of the Calvert amendment, and final passage of this bill.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion and the amendment. I support it not because it is going to change the world, but it is a gesture by this Congress to the fact that this Congress has done things that have been counterproductive to the working class, and I wish my colleagues on this side of the aisle that say they care about the entry-level jobs were as compassionate about the competition that American workers have to have every day against illegal immigration, uncontrolled immigration that the old Congress not only allowed but practically mandated and encouraged, and I just ask my colleagues to be as compassionate about the entry-level jobs, Americans who are waiting for good jobs, I wish they would care as much about the causes for driving down the fair market value of labor in this country that they have allowed along with some Members on this side to be able to do this. So this is a gesture of saying we have not only not done the right thing, we have consciously caused the fair market value of labor in this country to be depressed by cheap illegal imported labor, and I ask both parties now that say they care about the economy let us take care of that problem, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Bilirakis and the ranking member of our Health Subcommittee, Mr. Waxman, for the cooperative effort that we see here today. I hate to say it is too bad, that you watch, you will not see this on the front page of the papers or you are not going to see this on national television, the cooperative effort on something that is a major, health issue. I hope we see more of this kind of cooperation and I hope that the American people take notice of this success. I am pleased to see the conference report, Mr. speaker, that adequately funds the communities that are in desperate need of these funds to be able to address the heavy impacts of AIDS and HIV. I am also very pleased to see that this legislative piece actually directs and corrects some of the mistakes that were made from the past. Both Republicans and Democrats have worked together at developing a formula that is fair and equitable and truly applies to the need. The old formula actually had misconstrued numbers in it, Mr. Speaker, where there were actually communities getting funds based on numbers of people that had already passed away. I do not think anybody meant that to happen. What I am very proud of is this body, bipartisanly, has been able to work together to straighten out the mistakes of the past and make the Ryan White CARE Act not only stronger and better, but also fairer. I would like to take a moment to address one item, and that is an item brought up, and that is the issue of testing. I have an AIDS Advisory Committee member in my district that consists of health care experts and also advocates in San Diego for the AIDS community. They express major concerns about the mandatory testing component that was originally included. But by trying to work together and find a good compromise, this bill, through the conference process, has been able to work it out and actually present an alternative. I think the conference report addressed the concerns that allow the time in the States of this Union to be able to work with the Centers for Disease Control and their regulations to make a voluntary system that will work out, to counsel pregnant women, make sure there is the money, up to $10 million, to help not only to test, but also to counsel in the case of high risk women who fall in this category. With this compromise, we are able to get the job done. We are going to be able to break new ground, enter into new territory, and try to be more proactive in the first truly aggressive prevention strategy. I think that we should be very proud of that, Mr. Chairman. I understand that my advisory committee looked at this compromise, and though they had major concerns about the original proposal, feel that this is a very sound and humane way to approach this. I think it is one of those issues that will show that we not only can be humane, but we can also be smart and intelligent. With a crisis like the AIDS crisis we are confronted with, this is going to be something we need to do more of. Again, I thank Chairman Bilirakis and also my colleague from California for a job well done, and let us begin with this as an example of what we need to do more of, and not allow it to end here.