Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, actually I was a county supervisor which had supervision over county health; and because of all of the activities at the border, we decided when I was Chair that we needed to have it in both languages so everybody knew what was going on, including those who might have been visiting from down south.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). I appreciate the fact that he has been working with us on this amendment and other related amendments that directly affect the constituency of South San Diego County. Mr. Chairman, in my hometown of Imperial Beach, we spend our summers being greeted by this sign. It is a sign that many people in America see every once in awhile, but in I.B., sadly much too often. As a surfer and a diver, it is something that all of us who spend time in the water care a lot about, especially those of us who have children who spend time in the water. The difference in Imperial Beach and in Coronado is that the pollution that causes this sign does not come from a factory or a business or a community in America that is not taking care of its problems. Imperial Beach and Coronado in South San Diego County has been required by the EPA and the Federal Government to clean up their act so they do not pollute their beaches. The pollution that causes this sign comes from a foreign country crossing our international boundary and entering the United States and polluting our U.S. territorial waters and endangering the lives of children and the families of American citizens on American soil. Mr. Chairman, these two photos are a classic example of a technology that I have been working with the chairman on, remote sensing. One will actually be able to picture here the pollution or the turbidity coming across and entering the United States. One of the problems we have in San Diego is the Tijuana River flows from the urban areas of Tijuana, Mexico, and flows north into the United States and then enters the Pacific Ocean after going through a Federal estuarine and wildlife preserve. Supposedly one of the most protected Federal lands in America is an estuary and preserve with a designation of research capabilities. This pollution is not something new. It is something we have been putting up with since I was a child. It has become chronic over the last 20 years with the extensive growth in Mexico, and at the same time the Federal Government is requiring every city and every community in America to address its nonpoint sources coming out of its flood control channels and its storm drains. The United States Federal Government, through the International Boundary and Water Commission, has owned a flood control channel entering the country that constitutes the largest single pollutant source in San Diego County, and I am here to ask for support for an amendment that says the Federal Government will hold itself to the same standards that it demands on everybody else. We will not allow sewage to enter this country and run down a federally owned flood control system and pollute our estuaries and our preserve areas and our beaches and our children and their playground. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides $500,000 to be able to develop a system so that at this flood control channel as it enters the United States, the United States will be able to defend its citizens by catching the sewage, diverting it out of the flood control system and put it into a sewage system through an outfall and treatment concept. Without this system, without this $500,000, the citizens of the United States who live in this area are exposed to a foreign government's whim, at when they want to dump raw sewage on the United States and when they do not. Now I strongly believe that we need to have peacekeeping and intervention all over the world, but I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I would ask the ranking member to consider this: Who do we owe more obligation to to defend from foreign intervention than U.S. citizens on their own soil in their own neighborhoods? Now, understand that this is not a wealthy area. This is a working- class neighborhood. It has high minority numbers, and some of us may say, well, that is why it has been ignored for so long. I do not think so. I think it is because we do not understand the border and the border region. I like to think that it is a misunderstanding that has caused this situation. So I am asking that both the majority and the minority accept an amendment that says we have ignored this public health threat too long; we are willing to address this issue, and we are willing to make this commitment. Just as we make a commitment to people all over the world to stop the pollution problems that are affecting their neighborhoods, we are now finally going to address the issue here in the United States. Again, this is not a problem being created by the people in this neighborhood. This is a threat that begins in a foreign government and then travels.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, there are a whole lot of other things that I want to work with the chairman on. We have maintenance issues at this plant. We built a $200 million plant, and it is not properly maintained; the parts are not there. But I am asking just for this amendment now as a sign that the United States will do everything it can to defend its citizens from foreign pollution on U.S. soil. At this time, I ask both the majority and the minority, this is a chance for us to all pull together. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) represents part of this area. I represent the other. Here is a chance to show true bipartisan support, true bipartisan commitment, to defending Americans and protect the environment no matter what their party affiliation, no matter what neighborhoods they live in. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments before the committee today which I would like to explain for my colleagues. The purpose of my amendments is very straightforward. Let me first express that I have great respect and appreciation for the subcommittee chairman, Hal Rogers, and the challenges he's had to address in order to prepare his bill. I know that the limits of your allocation have made for difficult decisions, and I commend you for assembling such a good bill under these though circumstances. I am also very appreciative of the chairman's willingness to work with me in order to address the difficult public health and environmental problems my district faces as a result of untreated sewage flows from Mexico. In mid-1999, at my request, the city of San Diego initiated a study to determine the usefulness of satellite remote imaging for mapping and monitoring the dispersion of sewage discharges in the United States- Mexico border region. The objectives of this study were to (1) to demonstrate what type of remote sensing data can be useful for imaging effluent plumes, and (2) to validate information obtained by remote sensing data with field data. While the number of image sets available were limited, the results of this study indicate that all the remote sensing data types can significantly contribute to determining the contributions and extent of the sewage runoff discharges that affect the United States- Mexico border region. Among other things, this will help in isolating the true effects of the South Bay Ocean Outfall from ``false'' signals created from effluent from other shoreline sources. The satellite images in this study, two of which I have enlarged here today for my colleagues to see, show distinct near-shore turbidity patterns as well as larger-scale patterns extending further offshore. It is helpful to understand that the major turbidity signals within the near-shore zone are linked to terrestrial effluent discharges or runoff, as opposed to the stirring up of bottom sediments by winds, waves, or tidal currents. The image in figure 1 of the report was not preceded by any appreciable rain for more than three days. There are four areas where fresh discharge can be identified--the Tijuana River, a couple of smaller areas just south of there, the San Antonio Los Buenos treatment facility, and Los Buenos Creek. In figure 2, this image was acquired just 24 hours after a 2-day rain event, and clearly shows fresh runoff plumes from numerous sources. Clearly, this type of imaging can yield tremendous volumes of information which will be critical in helping to monitor, track, and respond to sources of ocean pollution plumes. I have prepared an amendment (#45) that would provide $200,000 to the IBWC, for the purposes of continuing to provide this kind of satellite image monitoring. My amendment would be offset from the Department of State's Diplomatic and Consular Affairs account. I also have at the desk another amendment which these photos will help to explain--located here in the photo, on the border, is the International Wastewater Treatment Plant. As the chairman is well aware, the IBWC has since 1998 been operating the U.S. International Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP), which sits along our southern border with Mexico and is presently treating up to 25 mgd of Mexican sewage to primary levels. This effluent is then discharged via the South Bay Ocean Outfall. Since this plant began operation in 1998, its operations and maintenance costs have increased considerably, as a result of several factors. 1. Pumps and other processing equipment consume large amounts of electrical power, and power costs at the IWTP are directly related to the volume of wastewater treated. Power costs at the plant have risen as a result of increased pumping needs at the IWTP, Smugglers' pump station, and Goat Canyon pump station. 2. Perhaps even more important, is the increasing recognition of the need to begin recurring nonannual preventive maintenance and testing-- this includes such things as pump rebuilding, testing of electrical systems, and conveyor overhaul--the basic functions that make the plant work. What we have here is a brand new plant, which is now beginning to reach its maintenance cycles, and in some instances, cycles which were projected as 2 or 3 year are starting to be seen as annual maintenance needs. This may sound like a lot of nuts and bolts, but the outcome is what is critical to me and my communities, Mr. Chairman, and that is whether the beaches are open and safe for people to use. To paraphrase the old saying, for want of a pump, the plant was lost--clearly, this is the situation we must avoid. The IBWC has worked hard to help keep the beaches open in the south San Diego county region, and I don't want to see that change out of maintenance needs. I recognize that the subcommittee worked hard to level fund these Commissions at the existing FY 2000 levels, Mr. Chairman, but I believe we must find a way to provide assurances that basic maintenance needs do not result in threats to the public health and environment in the upcoming summer months. Additionally, as I have discussed with the chairman, it is important to ensure that the IBWC will have adequate funds available to operate the emergency connection to the city of San Diego's Point Loma treatment plant, in the event of an emergency need this summer. My amendment (#16) would transfer $5.1 million to the IBWC's salaries and expenses account, for the purposes of ensuring that this routine but critical maintenance will continue to occur. I want to clarify for my colleagues that, as the chairman well knows, it is in this salaries and expenses account that operations and maintenance funds are located; this amendment is not going for additional salaries, or administrative overhead. The offset for my amendment is provided out of the Department of State's Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, which is funded in the bill at $498,100,000. I don't mean to diminish the importance of our peacekeeping operations abroad, but I feel very strongly that we must first protect our own borders, in this case from the public health threat generated by flows of Mexican sewage that has been confronting my constituents for decades. Chairman Rogers knows how strongly I feel about this, and is due a lion's share of the credit for the great work this committee has done on border environmental issues up to this point. My third amendment (#17) addresses an issue with which the chairman is very familiar, from our ongoing discussions. With my previous amendment on the IBWC, I talked about ensuring that the IBWC is able to continue operating the plant, which treats captured sewage. This amendment addresses what can be a far greater problem, which is the flows of renegade sewage that doesn't make it into any pipes or plants for treatment. An odd fact of nature is that in this part of the region the watershed, rivers, and urban runoff flow north, into the United States. When there are rain events, or when Mexican infrastructure breaks, fails, or is simply turned off without warning (which happens far too often), raw sewage runs downhill into the canyons along the border and into the Tijuana Estuary, or down the Tijuana River into the flood control channel where it enters the United States and continues toward the beaches in my hometown of Imperial Beach. All the treatment plants in the world won't end our contamination problem, if there are still significant volumes which aren't ending up ``in the pipe''. The IBWC is presently working on a plan to improve the capacity of the canyon sewage collectors which are now in place at Goat Canyon and Smuggler's Gulch, and this will certainly help. But the biggest ``non-point'' source of the United States side (I say U.S. because clearly, as the images from this report show, runoff from Los Buenos Creek is a major problem for both Mexican and United States beaches as the current takes it northward) is the Tijuana River, which is why I've gone to Chairman Rogers with a specific request. I believe it is essential that a diversionary structure be built in the flood control channel as it enters the United States, which could then capture renegade flows and divert them to the IWTP or other facilities for at least some level of treatment. IBWC agrees with this need, and is prepared to move forward with this project. My amendment would provide $500,000 for this purpose to the IBWC's construction account. It is offset from the State Department's Diplomatic and Consular Programs account, which is presently funded at $2,689,000. Mr. Chairman, I have some additional background materials, along with my full statement and amendments, which I would ask be entered into the Record at the appropriate point. I would urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and would reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, for his hard work in preparing this bill and bringing it to the floor today. I certainly appreciate all the effort that has gone into making this look easy. I wanted to talk briefly about one very important element of this bill, and that is the power plant which makes the Capitol run, and which will ultimately power and cool our new visitors center. What is also of interest to me is the fact this is the last power plant in Washington, D.C. which is fueled partially by burning coal. There used to be others--the GSA had two coal-burning plants, and Pepco also used to burn coal to generate energy. As a result of a need to meet Clean Air requirements in the District (which is in non-attainment for ozone), particularly on emissions of NOX, which is an ozone precursor, those plants now rely on natural gas or distillate oil to generate energy. In addition to knocking down NOX emissions, natural gas also has benefit of reducing emissions of sulfur dioxides and PM, both of which are generated from burning coal or fuel oil. For these reasons, I was pleased to learn that of the seven boilers that fire the Capital plant, five of them have already been converted to run on natural gas and/or fuel oil. It is my understanding that this conversion has already resulted in greatly reduced emissions, to the benefit of all those who live and work in this area. In addition to the obvious public health benefit, I think it is important that we here in Congress lead by example, as we have in the conversion of these boilers. As we debate proposals and pass laws which lead to stringent air quality controls on the private sector, it is critical that we demonstrate that we are serious about this, and are willing to take the same kind of steps here in our own backyard. For these reasons, I was pleased to read in the Capitol Hill Master Plan that as part of the expansion of the West Refrigeration Plant, ``the historical reduction in reliance on coal will be continued, resulting in the complete phase-out of use by the year 2003. The boiler system will be converted to run on natural gas and fuel oil.'' This is a continuation of the positive steps which have been taken to both modernize our power facilities, and reduce harmful emissions in the process. Now, I am aware that there has been an interest expressed by several Members and Senators in retaining a coal element of this plant, and that various options which entail ``cleaner-burning coal are now under evaluation. I would anticipate that once the review of these options are completed, the original phase-out proposal will be recognized as the most practical, both from cost and air quality standpoint. I had originally considered offering an amendment to ensure that the phase out and conversion timetable over to the cleaner fuels remained on track. While I will not be doing so today, I will remain interested in monitoring the developments surrounding the expansion of the Capital plant, and the ongoing conversion to natural gas and cleaner fuels. We have an obligation to lead by example, on air quality as on so many other issues, and so I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues in the future to see to it that this comes to pass. I submit a copy of my amendment to be placed in the Record. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. . No funds appropriated in this Act may be used to develop or implement any plan for fuel use at the Capitol Plant other than the fuel use plan set forth in the Capitol Plant Master Plan prepared by the Architect of the Capitol, dated May 11, 2000. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I want to thank the gentleman for his consideration and commitment. Mr. Chairman, my community is just asking how many more decades have to pass before the citizens of Imperial Beach and South San Diego are protected by their Federal Government from pollution from a foreign country. House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 22, 2000. Hon. James Walsh, Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies, House Appropriations Committee, the Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Walsh: I am writing to follow up on our continuing conversations regarding the public health and environmental threats posed by untreated Mexican sewage flowing into the U.S. and on to beaches in my district, and the need for secondary sewage treatment along our border with Mexico. I greatly appreciate the level of attention you and your staff have shown to me on this critical issue to date. As you well know, the Environmental Protection Agency has selected a ponding alternative for 25 mgd of secondary treatment at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP). While EPA has indicated that its chosen alternative would not require the appropriation of new monies, it nonetheless remains extremely controversial in South Bay communities. There is widespread concern that constructing ponds at this site would be shortsighted for two significant engineering reasons--(1) current levels of sewage have already reached to 50 mgd and higher, which would overcapacitate the 25 mgd ponds from day one, and (2) potential future expansion of the IWTP's capacity would be precluded by the location of secondary ponds on this site. It was for these reasons that I prevailed on the EPA throughout much of last year to give every possible consideration to the construction (by a public-private partnership) of a secondary treatment facility in Mexico, which would utilize the same kind of technology preferred by the EPA, but would have the ability to build out to treatment levels of 50, 75 or even 100 mdg, and in the process reclaim the wastewater for reuse in Mexico. It is clear that capacity levels of this magnitude are going to be needed in order to meet the needs of this rapidly growing region. However, the EPA has made clear its intention to proceed with its preferred alternative on the U.S. side, and has asked for your support in raising the cap on spending at the IWTP, in order to construct the ponds with funds already appropriated to it within the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF). I have reservations about the practicality of the EPA's preferred alternative, and believe that the immediate threat to our ocean and beaches in the U.S. stems from untreated Mexican sewage flows which are not being captured and treated at the IWTP. However, it is nonetheless critical to communities in the region, such as my hometown of Imperial Beach, that this effluent is treated to secondary levels, and that the capacity for doing so is able to be expanded in a timely manner in order to address the increasing levels of flow from Mexico. In order to achieve this target of secondary treatment, regardless of the alternative or technology chosen, the existing cap on spending will need to be raised. In a letter dated April 12, the EPA specifically asked for your assistance in this regard. You will recall that I supported a similar request from the EPA to raise the spending cap in the waning hours of the 105th Congress; however, it was submitted by the Administration too late to merit serious consideration at that ``eleventh hour.'' I recognize and appreciate the Subcommittee's fiscal and policy concerns about EPA's preferred alternative which you have outlined to me previously, including the subsequent likely need in the very near future to construct yet another costly facility in the US. to treat sewage flows which will exceed 25 mdg capacity of secondary ponds. I know that is a challenging issue your Subcommittee; however, the need for secondary treatment is clear. Therefore, I would respectfully urge you to pursue language in your FY 2001 bill which would facilitate raising the cap and embarking on a means to achieve secondary treatment which will comprehensively address this problem. I greatly appreciate your continued concern for and interest in this important issue, and thank you again for your consideration. Please don't hesitate to contact me directly, or Dave Schroeder of my staff, should your have question or require any additional information. Sincerely, Brian Bilbray, Member of Congress.

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. Given this procedural situation, I will not be offering my amendment at this time but will continue to work together with the gentleman on his bill to address the cap issue as the legislation moves forward. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the Federal Government be required to achieve the same environmental standards that they and we require on everyone else.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My friend from New York knows that I have been greatly concerned about the chronic problem of transborder sewage pollution coming from Mexico which continues to contaminate the oceans and close the beaches of the communities of South San Diego County, including my hometown of Imperial Beach. I have been working closely with the gentleman to address this problem of protecting the public health in my community. Specifically, I want to thank the gentleman for his careful consideration of my request to take action on the issue of the arbitrary cap on the spending limit on the U.S. international wastewater treatment plant across from Tijuana, Mexico, that treats their sewage and discharges it onto the beaches of my hometown of Imperial Beach. This cap was put in place in this VA-HUD bill by the 102nd Congress in 1992-1993. The sad result of this cap is that the international treatment plant, which is operated by the Federal Government, is now operating in violation of the Clean Water Act. This arbitrary cap must be lifted in order to provide for construction of secondary treatment on our side of the border that will adequately address both current and future flows of Mexican sewage. The Federal Government requires upgrades for environmental reasons at similar private sector and local facilities all over this country, but at the same time this arbitrary cap which was set by a previous Congress is resulting in the violation by the Federal Government of its own Clean Water Act. As the chairman of the subcommittee is aware, I have prepared an amendment to his bill which would have sought a lifting of this cap, and the facilitation of the timely construction of the secondary sewage facility. However, I am informed that the amendment would have been subject to a point of order as legislation on an appropriation bill.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293 due to airplane delays, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think we all are talking at each other, not with each other. I think we are about ready to vote on this issue. Let me just say sincerely, I voted with the gentlewoman from New York, and it is not because the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is my cousin. I think we ought to remember, as we talk across the aisle, that we are all Americans, and sometimes we are even family. I am ready to vote with her again, not because she is my cousin, but because it represents my district. I am representing my part of the world in this body as I swore to do under the Constitution. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is representing his district. I respect him for that. I respect him now as a representative under his constitutional powers. I have a little problem with the ridiculing and the attacking of us doing what we are supposed to do under our constitutional obligations. I do not care who the gentleman from Washington defeated to get this seat. That is not the point. He does represent his district, and I expect him to do the best he can. He has found an opportunity to aggressively represent his district. The gentlewoman from New York has aggressively represented her district. We should not be attacking them for doing that. We should be celebrating the system working. I just ask us to remember, this is what it is all about, representing our districts, and the cumulative impact of doing that. I would be remiss without bringing up one fact, we would all rather be somewhere tonight. I would have rather been at the graduation, of my children, Patrick and Briana, this week, but we are working on an education bill, we are working on an Interior bill. We are doing what we need to do. I apologized to my children for not being there. I need that on the Record, and I apologize to the Members for sneaking this in. But I need to say sincerely, we have some opportunities to work together rather than sniping. Let us accept the fact that we do what we can, we represent our districts, and let us go together, out of the fact that all of us are doing what the public in our districts mandate and what the public wants us to do.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. For the Record, my mother is from Australia, but she is an American who is from Australia. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to sort of echo the issue that when we talk about the death tax, I think too often we talk about the families that have to give up their businesses and give up their homes and their farms and the way that it breaks up the hard work and the sweat of parents, their ability to pass it on to their children, but I think that we do not talk about the bigger picture. I want to articulate something. The fight against the death tax should not be a fight for the taxpayer. It should not even be for the small farmer or the small business owner. The fight against the death tax should be a fight for a civilized, decent society, and that is it. Now, my colleagues may say how can I tie the death tax to the concept of decency? Well, Mr. Speaker, I always try to think about what will history say about us as a society. There is this movie out ``The Gladiator'' about this great civilization called Rome. But how can they be a great civilization when they had the kind of blood letting they had? And history has damned the Romans for that. What I worry about is what will history say of the greatest nation in the history of the world, the United States of America? What will they say about us a thousand years from now? And will they say about us, oh, they were a great nation, but they taxed their dead? How are we going to justify ourselves to history? Now, there is a bigger picture here that I think we have got to address, and that is the fact that this tax does not just impact individuals and businesses but it is impacting us as a society. I think those of us on the Republican and the Democratic side will say one of the biggest concerns we have is watching multinational corporations come into the United States and absorb and digest and consume small entrepreneurial family businesses such as farms and businesses. And we will hear those on both sides of the aisle talk about how multinational corporations are getting so big and they are basically getting the monopoly because the little guy is being gobbled up. And it is right. The true defender of the consumer is not government. The true enemy of big business is not big government. It is little business that competes and gives the consumer an alternative than the big business corporations and the multinational corporations that we hear our liberal friends always yelling about. But our tax laws, my colleagues, are subsidizing and encouraging and at many times mandating the selling out of small entrepreneurial businesses to the multinational corporations. I will give my colleagues one example. Roll Construction in San Diego is a family-built construction business and they have come to the conclusion that when mom dies, the only way for them to be able to pay the death tax is to sell out to a major multinational corporation. This is what it really comes down to. Are we for the little guy? Are we truly for the taxpayer? Are we truly for the American? Or are we so hell-bent to get our pound of flesh that we are willing to not only tax the dead, sell the farm, sell the business, but also subsidize the big corporate interests? That is something that we do not hear a lot of talk about here. I think that we need to talk about it. Because I think that we have got to understand that this will not only impact and help the corporate but when the consumer is looking for competition, when the consumer needs the break, the consumer will not have the little entrepreneurial business to be able to beat the big guy because he is not going to be around because the United States government has taxed them into nonexistence. And so I think that when we talk about the death tax, I want to ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, think about what you really care about. And if you are so hell-bent to try to get the rich guy, remember what happened in 1898 when this government said we are going to get the rich guy by taxing the rich guy's phones because everyone knows that the little guy and the working class does not have phones. History has proved this year, we realized what a huge mistake that politics of envy and of hate generate in the tax code. The working class got nailed the worst of anybody proportionately. Remember in the early 1990s when they said we are going to tax the rich and get their boats because that is a luxury by the rich. Who got hurt? Who got hurt was the working class that were building those boats. They were out of work. The business left the country. I think we all remember the concept of the income tax was to really tax those who made about $800,000 in today's dollars. It was only going to be 1 percent. Who would care? We are only taxing the rich. I think every working-class family today now realizes what goes around comes around. Mr. Speaker, I just think that we have got to say if we believe in capitalism, if we believe in a free economy, if we believe in government not subsidizing major world corporations, if we believe in the fact that the family unit has the right to serve a community as a family unit, as a business and a farm, then the death tax has to go. I will close with one last example. There is a Latino family in my district whose father immigrated here back in the 1950s, who has raised a family and the sisters and the brothers and the mother and the father and the uncles work in that print shop. They have grown their business in printing. The fact is, though, they came to me and said, ``If anything happens to mom and dad, we have to sell out.'' Who will they sell out to? To the people who have the money to buy them out, the big corporate interests that do not want to see those small entrepreneurial immigrants competing with them. I would just ask us to consider that and let us not talk about and cry about the fact that big companies are getting bigger unless you are willing to stand up and say, okay, there are some things we cannot control in the private sector but this is one we can. Government, for God sakes, quit subsidizing the major national corporations and start it here first by not forcing small family businesses to sell out to them. We hear a lot of talk about that, about not subsidizing corporate business, on both sides of the aisle. That should be right. But the death tax is the major force of making them sell out. You can see every study in the world what breaks the back of the family business. So I ask my colleagues a thousand years from now, what will historians say about this Congress and this society and this Nation? Will they say that we taxed the dead and taxed their citizens to death or will they say they recognized the wrong, they recognized the injustice, they recognized the immorality of their tax code and they did the right thing and killed the death tax.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I am going to be having a town hall meeting in my district with Senator McCain. As my colleagues know, I was one of the few that was willing to sign a discharge petition and was right there from the beginning in the creation of our campaign finance reform. My support for campaign finance reform is based on a lot of reasons. One, this issue is near and dear to me. I have been a victim of these very unfair and hideous attacks that so-called independent groups can do. But my support for campaign finance reform is to bring back some integrity to the electoral process. But sadly here today the issue of bringing back integrity to the electoral process is being brought in as a way to stop us or restrict us from bringing back integrity about this Congress and about this government when it comes to taxation law. Now, I have also been the original cosponsor of repealing this quite unfair law, the law that said, oh, just let us tax a few rich people in 1898 for a little bit to pay for the Spanish American War and, and do not worry, we will not tax the working class, and we will repeal it after the war. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have got a choice tonight. We can play partisan politics and try to take advantage of this issue of a bipartisan bill. Democrats and Republicans have come together and said this tax is wrong and it is immoral and the credibility of Congress is being called in on this and that we need to set an example to the American people that, when it comes to the laws of this Congress, that when we say we are going to raise taxes for one purpose and for that purpose, that when the purpose is over, eventually even if it is 100 years later, we will come back and eliminate that tax. Mr. Speaker, I think that what we are saying today is that both of us, both Democrats and Republicans, agree it is a credibility of our taxation system that we repeal this tax. I want to say something about this tax because I think that we hear on the floor again and again the issue of class warfare. I think that this tax is an example of the failed concept of trying to tell and promise the American people that, do not worry, we are going to tax the other guy. We are going to get them, but it will not get you. Now, I come from a working-class community, and I have heard again and again on this floor that, do not worry, we are only going to tax the rich, as if the middle class is so stupid that they do not know what goes around comes around; that the middle class always bears the brunt and the burden of taxation. This tax is an example. In 1898, it was focused only to the very wealthy; now it has gone around. I am asking us, let us stop the partisan fighting. Quit tying to take political advantage. We have a bill that both sides agree on. There is no excuse except partisan advantage not to repeal this tax at this time.

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record an article from the Los Angeles Times relating to the topic of my amendment. [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18, 1999] Study Critical of Exhaust From School Buses (By Marla Cone) California's children are breathing unhealthful exhaust spewed by diesel school buses that are among the oldest and highest-polluting in the nation, according to a report to be released today by a Los Angeles environmental group. The report, by the Coalition for Clean Air, urges Gov. Gray Davis' administration to set tough emission standards for school buses and to provide tens of millions of dollars to help school districts replace their fleets with new buses powered by cleaner-burning alternative fuels. About 17,000 diesel buses deliver children to school, including some 20-year-old models that spew dark clouds of noxious smoke. Diesel exhaust, a mix of soot and toxic gases, has been linked in health studies to lung cancer, asthma attacks, allergies and other respiratory illnesses. Officials of the state Air Resources board and the state's largest school district agreed Wednesday that the current school bus fleet poses an environmental threat to children but have yet to decide on a strategy to deal with the problem. Diesel manufacturers said they are improving their engines and see no need for schools to switch to alternative technologies. No one knows how much of a danger bus exhaust poses to schoolchildren--the amounts they breathe have not been measured and no studies have calculated their disease rates. In fact, for Californians on average, heavy-duty trucks pose a far greater health risk, with buses blamed for less than 1% of total diesel emissions, according to the California Air Resources Board. Nevertheless, Air Resources Board Chairman Alan Lloyd, appointed this year by Davis, said the emissions, while relatively small, could be posing a serious health danger because tens of thousands of children come into direct contact with the bus exhaust every school day. ``We would agree with the coalition that the risk from diesel, particularly from school buses, should be reduced,'' Lloyd said. ``We're trying to crack down on all sources of diesel.'' The report comes as the air board is preparing to unveil a controversial proposal in December that would set new state pollution standards for transit buses next year. That proposal, however, will exempt school buses because of the financial burden it would put on California's already struggling school districts. Instead, Lloyd said the board's staff in January will outline a separate strategy for getting cleaner buses at schools. Buses powered by alternative technologies, predominantly compressed natural gas, are already available and are substantially cleaner than diesel buses. The price tag, however, for converting all of California's school fleet to natural gas would exceed $1 billion, according to the environmental group's calculations. Antonio Rodriquez, transportation director at the Los Angeles Unified School District, said the district has been trying to clean up its fleet--it has gotten rid of its oldest buses and the rest meet current emission standards. Also, the district operates a small number powered by cleaner natural gas and hopes to buy more, but Rodriquez said money is the main obstacle because each one costs about 35% more than a diesel bus. ``We're always interested in making sure our buses are as clean as possible,'' he said. ``We all breath the same air in this basin, and whatever we can do to clear the air helps our kids.'' Last year, the state air board declared diesel soot a cancer-causing air pollutant that could be causing 14,000 Californians alive today to contract cancer. Medical experts say that children are especially vulnerable to the effects of diesel exhaust because they inhale large volumes of pollutants for with their body weight and because their immune systems are still developing. Also, half million asthmatic children live in California, and some medical experts say diesel exhaust can trigger attacks. The environmental group reports that California ranks among the worst states--47th out of 50--in terms of the percentage of buses built before 1977. Pre-1977 diesel buses emit four times more particle soot and three times more smog-forming fumes than new natural gas buses, according to the air board. About 69% of the state's 24,372 buses are fueled by diesel and nearly 1,000, or 4%, predate 1977, according to data in the report compiled from three state agencies. ``Everyday, our children step aboard and ride a school bus that may intensify their exposure to diesel exhaust, a known human carcinogen,'' the Coalition for Clean Air report says. ``This exposure does not end with the bus ride, however. Exposure also occurs in and around the school grounds when school buses park and idle nearby or load and unload students.'' While other vehicles on California's roads are the cleanest in the nation, school buses lag far behind. Last year, the state air board resolved to promote alternative technologies for school buses and eliminate pre- 1977 models. But little has been done to accomplish those goals. One of every five urban transit buses run on natural gas, compared with only 3% of school buses. In its report, the Coalition for Clean Air urges the state to apply a new bus emission standard to schools. It also wants Davis and the Legislature to provide funds ``exclusively earmarked'' for nondiesel school buses. School districts, the group says, should adopt policies that phase out diesel buses, and parents should lobby for action. The future of diesel--long considered the workhorse of America because it powers heavy-duty vehicles from trucks to trains-- has been a recent focus of intense debate, especially in California. Engine manufacturers, who oppose any efforts favoring alternative fuels over diesel, have spent millions of dollars researching ways to reduce emissions from diesel engines. They also question the reliability of health studies that find an increased cancer rate among workers exposed to high amounts of exhaust, and say there is no evidence that school children are breathing inordinate amounts. ``We're very concerned about the health and safety of the people who use our products and of the environment, but there's significant controversy at every level about the health effects,'' said William Bunn, medical director of Navistar International, the largest manufacturer of bus engines in North America. ``As we continue to determine what, if any, health effects there are, we are committed to the `green' diesel approach.''

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am just asking that as we ask the private sector to invest in cleaner, more environmentally friendly technology that we finally stand up and say that the United States Government will not set aside just a portion of its transportation money for clean air and good environment, we are going to now say that all of our transportation funds should be aimed at clean technology and good environment and clean air; that the Clean Air Act is just as important and that the public health is just as important, and that is going to be implemented here. Mr. Chairman, I have always been frustrated by the spending of federal dollars on polluting technologies, which runs absolutely counter to our other federal clean air strategies. Let me say, however, that I greatly appreciate the work which has been done over the years by Chairman Wolf, to move away from this old concept and to encourage the use of cleaner technologies. He should be commended for his work, and I appreciate his long-time support on this important issue. In the last Congress, I offered a similar proposal as part TEA-21, which became law in June of 1998. Due to concern over the proposal, this became a GAO study of the availability of alternative technologies. That study was released in December of 1999, and shows that while diesel technology has in fact gotten cleaner, alternative technologies are readily available for fleet use, and are being used in many locations (for many years in my own county of San Diego, for example). Since TEA-21 became law, we have seen a great deal of new science on diesel emissions, and increased public concern over their health effects, especially on children. While the technology has gotten cleaner, we know that emissions from diesel engines contain potential cancer-causing substances such as: arsenic; benzene; formaldehyde; nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Diesel also contains over 40 substances listed by the EPA as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and by the California Air Resources Board as toxic air contaminants (TACs). In California, the ARB has been working to reduce the risks from all sources of diesel. In November of 1999, I introduced legislation which would achieve the goals being discussed here today--H.R. 3376, the Cleaner Technologies in Transit Act. I hope to be able to work with many of my colleagues together on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I've learned many things from my colleagues since I started focusing on this process here in Congress. I know that there are a number of cleaner, alternative technologies which are not only available, but in use in many of my colleagues' districts. Mary Bono, Zach Wamp, Steve Horn, and many others have told me about the work they've done to encourage alternative fleets in their districts, and I greatly appreciate their leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to call for a recorded vote, and will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. Before I do this, however, I want to thank my colleagues for their interest in this important issue, and for taking the time to work with me and inform me of their experience. It is my hope that this discussion today will help move us closer to the goals of my amendment, and my bill, to benefit the public health and the air quality of all our constituents.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time, and I just ask that we not just look at throwing money at this problem but make sure what we spend for transit is consistent with our federal laws.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as an individual who had the pleasure of working on mass transit, but also on clean air strategy, it has always been a frustration for many of us in the environmental community to see while the Federal Government and government as a whole demands that the private sector leave dirty polluting technology behind and move towards cleaner technologies, the Federal Government itself continues to allows its money both directly and indirectly to be used in purchase of the polluting technologies that ruin our environment, are totally counter to our Federal clean air strategies. Now, let me say at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I greatly appreciate the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) in moving this issue forward and moving away from the old concept that pollution is okay if it is a government agency, and towards the new concept that government needs to participate in cleaning up our environment. The gentleman has been a strong, strong supporter in the concept that we need to move this issue along, and I appreciate his long support on the issue. In the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, I offered a similar amendment in TEA-21, in 1998, but because there were some concerns in Congress that the technology had not caught up with this amendment, we basically withdrew it, and, instead, implemented a GAO study to see if the technology was available to replace dirty technology. That study was released in 1999 and shows that while diesel technology has gotten better, the alternative technologies are already available and have been used by local governments for over a decade. Since TEA-21 became law, there has been a lot that has happened with science of technology and clean environmental approaches. Now, while we have got these new technologies, we have also gotten information about diesel, that diesel engines contain cancer-causing substances, such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel, these are emissions coming out of vehicles being purchased with American tax dollars. Diesel contains over 40 substances listed by the EPA as hazardous, and the Air Resources Board has identified those 40 substances as toxic air contaminants. In November of 1999, I introduced a bill to say it is time we stop this hypocrisy, the Federal Government, and government as a whole, should be cleaning up our act, not continuing to pollute, while the private sector is being mandated to clean up. Mr. Chairman, I have learned many things while working with my colleagues on this issue in focusing on trying to get our technology in line with our strategies, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bono), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), many others have been working on this issue. I intend not to call for recorded vote, and I am going to ask for consent to withdraw this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), who has raised this issue before.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I do not have time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a very moderate amendment. There are many people in America who would say it does not go far enough. We hear a lot about what our responsibilities are in the Federal government, but if we read the Constitution, Article 4 specifically says that the Federal government's responsibility is to defend our neighborhoods from outside invasion. We have a drug war supposedly going on, and the American people are paying to send troops all over the world to defend everybody else's neighborhoods, but Members of Congress who are sworn to uphold the Constitution will not even authorize the President to use troops if necessary to defend our children from the scourge of drugs. The gentleman from Ohio is not saying put them there, he says at least be brave enough to say that if this is what it takes, we are willing to stand by our citizens, our children, and our Constitution that says our obligation constitutionally is not to defend other countries but to defend our own children in their neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to understand, this is a moderate proposal being presented. If Members will not even authorize the executive branch to use what resources are available to defend our children, resources that are used for other children all around the world, I ask Members, who do Members defend if they are not going to defend their children and their own constitutional responsibilities? Check it out, Article 4, the responsibility of the Federal government to stop foreign invasion. Our country is being invaded by drugs. I do not want anyone to stand up and point fingers at other countries, that they are not doing enough about fighting the drug war, when they will not stand up and execute the minimum of constitutional responsibilities of this Congress.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, let us be upfront about this. Mexico has recognized how critical the war on drugs are. They have put their troops at the border. We are not even mandating that. We have Naval forces and Air forces right now working a drug interdiction on the border, and we have the National Guard of the State of California. I do not know about the other States, but the troops from California are already at the border. Now, I have supported both gentlemen from Texas in increasing funding for Border Control, but to deny the American people who pay the taxes for the national defense capabilities of this country, to deny them the resources defending their neighborhoods, because we are worried about a public relations problem, or we are worried that it may detract from hiring more Border Patrol agents, I strongly support that. I think my colleagues know that. San Diego has more drug problems through the court system than any other portion of this country. This is not about conviction. This is about interdiction. I strongly support the argument of the gentleman from Texas that we need more court processes. But do not dare walk away from the fact that the States are doing it, Mexico is doing it, the Navy is doing it, the Air Force is doing it, everyone is committed to this. Everyone is committed to controlling the border, but we are going to condition that American troops will not be used for controlling our border.