Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, there was a lot of discussion here about the problems and the opportunities of NAFTA on this floor, but this is a situation where we need to recognize that with all the hand-wringing and the complaints about NAFTA not creating enough jobs in the United States or pulling jobs away from the American worker, here is a project that has the opportunity to make NAFTA, at least in some part, a major positive in job generation. Here is a possibility of bringing jobs into the United States by having the proper infrastructure to be able to capitalize on the opportunity of the United States to be part of the export network from Mexico into Asia. This gives the capability to creating jobs in the Southwest that would not exist without this infrastructure and without NAFTA, frankly. I would just ask that all my colleagues who feel that NAFTA has not gotten the job done for the workers of America to recognize that though there are problems, there are also opportunities, and with those opportunities comes Federal obligations to take advantage of those opportunities and create the jobs, not just sit here in the House and say, well, the jobs just are not there, it is not working out, and complain. But then look at these opportunities, as my colleague from California has pointed out, to build the infrastructure, to create the jobs, to make the opportunities so that the private sector can do what it does all too well, and that is to create the opportunities for those jobs. And I want to point out about border control, Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone who sat on the House floor in the last 2 years has been more vocal than I have about border control. I think those of us who want to see border control need to recognize that there are rights and responsibilities of the Federal Government along this border. We need to control the border, but we also need to encourage the good things. We need to stop the illegal activity but also encourage the legal commerce that will make the border a prosperous opportunity for America rather than the problem that we have seen for all too long.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are hearing much talk about what is not in this bill and why they are finding excuses to vote against this bill. Let me give Members a major reason to vote for this bill for people who say they want to protect the most needy, the most disadvantaged in our society. Mr. Speaker, for decades this Federal Government has mandated that we provide certain services across this country, and over the last few years we have mandated that poor working-class hospitals provide free emergency health care to illegal aliens. At the same time this Congress and other Congresses have mandated that, they have walked away from the responsibility to pay the bill for the emergency health care to illegal aliens. This bill, Mr. Speaker, has in it a fund set aside to finally reimburse those working-class hospitals that have been denied the reimbursement that they have deserved for so long. I hope my colleagues who claim to represent the poor, the needy, the disadvantaged, the people that are not getting their fair share of health care and coverage, will stand up and say at least, look, this bill does include something that has been denied for much too long. Support this bill and finally start paying for the health care of the illegal aliens that we mandate to be serviced. Quit being a deadbeat dad.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let me point out again, Mr. Chairman, this does not mandate that these resources be put at the border. It only allows them to be put at the border if the administration determines it needs to be done. Let me tell my colleagues, as someone who lives within a quarter mile of the border, my children and my wife are in that neighborhood today. It is quite unfair and quite inappropriate for us to say that our U.S. capabilities will defend the neighborhoods of every nation in the world, but we will not defend the neighborhoods of south San Diego. Mr. Chairman, I have here the record of 251 Members of Congress who voted that Mexico is not doing enough on drug interdiction; 250 Members of Congress who pointed fingers at Mexico and said they need to do more. Mr. Chairman, Mexico has put troops at the border because that is what it takes to stop the drug traffic. All this amendment says, if the President feels that it needs to be done, he is authorized to do that. As somebody who is at the border every weekend, let me point out it is getting more violent. American agents are being shot from a foreign country. We are getting people killed along the border today. All this does is prepare the way that, if the administration sees a crisis, that crisis can be addressed with American resources.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discussion this morning about the budget, and the Democrats and the Republicans going back and forth here. Let me ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on this side of the aisle to consider one thing that happened this week that has not been talked about here on the House floor. A young man was sitting in his vehicle doing his job for the United States this week at 3 o'clock Saturday night, and somebody on the other side of the Mexican border took a high-powered rifle, walked on to an overpass, and fired 17 rounds at this young man in his twenties. One bullet grazed his head, the other went through his left shoulder and the flying glass through his windshield took out, maybe has lost his left eye. I only say this so my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as we debate back and forth, are sensitized of the fact of reality out along our frontier. I ask all of my colleagues to remember that this man was doing his job for us, and there was an assassination attempt on this individual with a high-powered rifle from a foreign country. The border is out of control, I say to my colleagues. If we think that we have problems here, please come and look at that. I say this: This is one of five instances in the last few weeks where an officer has had to use a firearm to protect themselves. Please join, both Democrats and Republicans, to address this issue comprehensively.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, this issue invokes a lot of emotion. We all feel very strongly about our bond with dolphins and porpoises. As somebody who spends a lot of time in the ocean, I, no less than anybody else, feel strongly about it. But this issue really needs to be looked at in the strong light of science. Two major components that we have recognized in the last decade that we have to do if we are going to be responsible to the environment is first abandon the monospecies concept of species management and use multispecies management; look at the big picture from nature's point of view. The other issue is to go from the mononational to the international strategies when we are addressing environmental problems. H.R. 408 makes that transition from the old law that basically only looked at dolphins, only related to the impacts of the environment based on dolphins, but de facto, unintentionally encouraged and actually made basically the only economic opportunity a thing called log fishing, which as many scientists will document, has caused the deaths of endangered species and subspecies that were never meant to be hurt by the original law. I do not think we should have to make a choice between Flipper over here and the Ninja Sea Turtles over there. I think everyone recognizes that we should look at the big picture from the species management point of view. The second item is the global approach. Mr. Chairman, we all remember the gross and graphic photos of dolphins being pulled up in nets and being dragged down. I would ask us all to remember, please remember, that graphic photo was not of an American tuna boat. It was of a foreign tuna boat. We can vote no on this proposal and act like we have washed our hands of the responsibility, but if we walk away from an international agreement to finally make the rest of the world responsible for addressing this problem with us, we will be walking away from an opportunity to save those dolphins for the future. It is all fine to play Pontius Pilate and wash our hands and say we are so pure because we kept with the old law when we have walked way from this opportunity. I ask Members not to walk away from the opportunity of doing what is right for science, right for the dolphins, right for good environment.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, let me just say the 5,000 number is being bandied around as if whatever is on paper ends up being reality. The House of Representatives has to recognize it is a real world out there. The 5,000 number exists in the law today. The mortality rate is half of that. If the industries and the fishermen out there now are not killing at the rate of limit, how can we assume that somehow by keeping the same number it will double the kill? It is irrational. It is trying to play to emotions. Let us try to keep it to science.

Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BILBRAY. That is the goal. Do not accept the old law that has basically caused things that we did not know, but take it one step further and go to zero. Zero option is the goal here. The fact is it is unfair for somebody to take a look at a number that exists today and then try to blame this legislation for possible killings that are not going on today.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, which will lock in strong, enforceable international dolphin protection measures, and prevent the loss of other sensitive or endangered species to ``bycatch'', such as sharks, sea turtles, and juvenile tunas. In doing this, I don't intend to talk about sinister foreign policy conspiracies, environmental sovereignty violations, black helicopters, and the like, but rather about marine species management. I strongly believe that the battle for sound species management is never over; it is not accurate or practical to say ``well, we took care of that problem in the 1970's or the 1980's, so we don't need to revisit it to make sure it is working the way we intended it to.'' We are trying to embrace the idea of moving beyond single-species management to multispecies management, and looking at the big picture, the interrelationship of all species among themselves and the environment. As part of this, we need to pursue expansion of our domestic species management strategies into an international approach; to take the good science that we try to apply to our national environmental plans and use it to address broader concerns. Some today would prefer to believe that dolphins and only dolphins are the issue at hand. But we have to recognize that the time has come for more global, long-term policies to assure that we address the question of dolphin protection in the big picture. I think that the Panama Declaration is one of those rare products which recognizes that to be effective, we have to look at the whole environment, and not simply have tunnel vision, or a ``species of the month'' mentality. We have to be able to expand our perspectives, and move to a broader, more inclusive management approach. This means going beyond simple defense of the status quo. The status quo is not something that you or I want to carry into the next century, and say ``this is the best America and the word could do for the ocean and all its wildlife.'' We have taken a world leadership role in environmental strategies up to this point. There are those who would say that isolationism, in either trade, or foreign policy, or even environmental issues is the way we should proceed. I strongly disagree with this philosophy, and believe that we have to maintain our role as the world leader in establishing sound conservation strategies. This is essential if we are to avoid letting problems go unnoticed until they reach crisis proportions, such as a sea turtle population or fish species beginning to ``crash'' from the law of unintended consequences. This issue of ``bycatch'' is one that has to be addressed, and will be addressed in the context of H.R. 408. I doubt that any of us mean to say ``the only priority of this Congress is dolphins and only dolphins, and we don't want to be bothered with the accidental destruction of other species other than dolphins''. The agreement which is embodied in H.R. 408 locks in our existing successes in increased dolphin protection, and reduced mortality rates. More importantly, it expands the sophistication of our conservation strategy to take into account the impacts on endangered sea turtles, or billfish, and especially immature and nonmarketable young tuna. We shouldn't focus on one species only, at the expense of others, yet this is what is happening under existing fishing practices. H.R. 408 does the right thing--it will continue our amazing record of success in balancing strong dolphin protection measures with progressive tuna fishing methods, and expand those protections to include other species which are now being negatively impacted by the old strategy. We need to be brave enough to take this step. We who claim to truly care about the environment have not only the right, but the responsibility, to do the right thing to improve and strengthen our environmental laws when science indicates there is a need to do so. To my colleagues today, I say this--if we want to truly save dolphins for our children and theirs, and to take a comprehensive approach to protecting sensitive ocean species, then we need to move this bill forward. The President will sign it into law, and sound science and bipartisanship will have triumphed over emotion to do the right thing for our environment. Let's take this step to make that happen. Support H.R. 408. [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 dolphin 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. As 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 presented 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 a 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 onboard observers certify that no dolphins were killed. Under current law, no tuna can be sold as ``dolphin-safe'' in 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 Humane 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 100 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 attained 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' to be killed outright.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably and unavoidably detained on my way to the House floor this afternoon, and as a result was not present for rollcall votes No. 76 and No. 77--H.R. 1226, the Taxpayer Browsing Relief Act, and House Resolution 109, a sense of Congress on family tax relief. Had I been present, I would have certainly voted ``yea'' on both measures.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1062.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is no secret that this Member came from the southern parts of San Diego County to this institution, in no little way to try to sensitize this institution in Washington, DC, to the extent and the massiveness of the problems along our frontier and the problems that we encounter, those of us that live along the border. I find myself in a very, very interesting position here today, because I have to say quite frankly that I think that we are seeing this week Washington and Congress finally starting to talk about and realize the magnitude of the problem that lies across our border to the south, and along our border and the entire area that we call the Frontera. I have to say to my colleagues that I find it hard to believe that this institution did not realize, and does not realize today, the magnitude of the quest and the challenge the people of the Republic of Mexico have faced for many years and face today in trying to liberate their country from the tyranny of drug traffickers. Their national sovereignty is being threatened not by a force from outside, but from within. I think for us to underestimate the magnitude of that impact and that challenge is really demeaning to both of us. Mr. Speaker, let me point out, Mexico has done things to fight drug trafficking that we in the United States have not been brave enough to do. Mexico has not found it easier to put only half as many agents at the border as has been authorized by Congress. So I will say that about the administration. But I will also say this about the majority in Congress. Mexico has put troops at the border, not because they want armed troops at the border, but because they realize the problem is so big that they cannot find excuses not to do everything humanly possible. So I would ask the administration, put the resources to cooperate with Mexico along the frontier, but I would also ask the majority, look at the bipartisan Traficant-Hunter bill and tell me, have we done everything, everything possible to be certified as being one who is willing to take on this battle and be able to judge Mexico? Mr. Speaker, I ask that we do not judge those who are doing more than we have ever dreamed. Let us cooperate with them and move forward.

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 reintroducing the Workplace Fairness Act of 1997, 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--then the court may rule that the plaintiff may pay the 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 quality of the air we breathe is of great concern to all of us. Young and old, rich and poor, liberal or conservative, we are all vulnerable to poor air quality. While we have seen great strides in the last decade in terms of improved air quality, it is incumbent upon us to work to ensure that sound science lies at the foundation of any modifications or improvements to existing law. By the same token, when opportunities exist to actually improve the service provided by our environmental and public health strategies, we have not only the right, but also the responsibility to implement them, based on that same common denominator of sound science. Such an opportunity now exists in California, which has long been at the forefront of our national efforts to improve air quality and reduce ambient pollution levels. As a former member of the California Air Resources Board [ARB], I am very proud of California's historic role in this regard. I am pleased to be able to introduce bipartisan legislation, H.R. 630, which will further enhance the air quality of my State by building upon the progressive work already done by the State of California, under the direction of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to adopt a Federal reformulated gasoline program for urban areas with the most serious smog problems. The 1990 amendments required that Federal reformulated gasoline contain various specified properties, and established limitations on the level of flexibility that EPA could build into the program. Federal reformulated gasoline regulations were promulgated in early 1994, and became applicable in December of that year. In California, the Federal regulations now apply in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento regions. At the same time, the California Air Resources Board [CARB] was developing a comprehensive clean fuels program. These regulations, which were adopted in 1991 and became applicable in the spring of 1996, established the most stringent and comprehensive gasoline standards in the world. It includes specifications for eight different properties which affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and ozone forming compounds. The State regulations also contain a predictive model which is based on analysis of a large number of vehicle emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this predictive model to produce reformulated gasoline, subject to an alternative set of specifications, that has been shown by the model to achieve equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than result from use of the Federal RFG. This model is being utilized in California to produce much of the reformulated gasoline now consumed in the State. Recent studies have shown that the expanded use of reformulated gasoline in California has resulted in measurable and continuing decreases in emissions and air pollution in that region. I would like to include with this statement a recent article from the January 16, 1997 San Diego Union Tribune which elaborates further on these air quality improvements. However, the overlapping applicability of the Federal and State reformulated gasoline regulations has reduced the ability to take advantage of the flexibility and public health benefits provided by the more stringent California program. Compliance with the Federal standard is still required, despite the fact that the California standard has been demonstrated to achieve equal or superior air quality benefits. H.R. 630 will streamline this unwieldy process, and build upon the existing Clean Air Act to permit the more stringent California regulations to apply in lieu of the Federal standards, only if they will achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions. The EPA has already provided this determination in the form of a final rulemaking for California reformulated gasoline, which was published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1994. In that rule, EPA drew the following conclusions: First, that VOC and toxic emission reductions resulting from the California Phase II standards would be equal to or more stringent than the Federal reformulated gasoline standards; second, that the content standards for oxygen and benzene under the California Phase II standards would in practice be equivalent to the Federal content standards; and third, that the California Air Resources Board's compliance and enforcement program is sufficiently rigorous. Additionally, the California standards have been approved by the EPA as part of California's State Implementation Plan [SIP], and thus are federally enforceable. H.R. 630 has been carefully written to apply exclusively to the State of California. As prescribed by section 211(c)(4)(6) of the Clean Air Act, a State which has received a waiver under section 209(b)(1) may ``at any time prescribe and enforce, for the purpose of motor vehicle emission control, a control or prohibition respecting any fuel or fuel additive.'' In order to receive a 209(b)(1) waiver, a State must have adopted emissions standards for new motor vehicles prior to March 30, 1996. Because California is the only State which has qualified for a waiver under section 209(b)(1), H.R. 630 is therefore applicable only to California--no other State is eligible. This bipartisan bill is supported by the California Air Resources Board, and I am grateful for the continued dialog and input I have received from colleagues, the State, industry, and several public health organizations, which has helped to further focus and clarify the intent of the legislation. I believe that H.R. 630, while narrowly targeted, will help to further accomplish the broader goals of the Clean Air Act that we all share, which are to provide the cleanest and healthiest air possible for the American people. I further believe that this bill can provide an example of how we ought to interpret and manage our environmental and public health laws, so that they can be made more effective in terms of product, by being kept as dynamic and flexible as possible in terms of process. Just as the vehicles which we all drive need to be fine-tuned from time to time in order to keep them running efficiently, so too do our environmental strategies. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 16, 1997] New Gasoline Formula is Fueling Air-Pollution Decline--It Dramatically Cuts Smoggy Day Numbers (By Steve La Rue) San Diego County had fewer smoggy days in 1996 than in any year since health standards were set and air-pollution measurement began. Most of the credit is being given to a new blend of gasoline. The air was unhealthy to breathe by state standards on 51 days last year at one or more of the county's nine monitoring stations--a sharp drop from the 96 smoggy days in 1995, 139 days in 1990, and the 151 smoggy days in 1978, the year the California Clean Air Act applied the state standards. The pollutant involved is ozone, a colorless, odorless gas that can sting the throat and eyes. It also can reduce lung capacity temporarily or permanently, depending on the exposure. ``We have had a dramatic reduction in the number of days over (health) standards, and there was no dramatic meteorological difference in the two years,'' said Richard Sommerville, county air pollution control officer. ``That implies that the big change that did occur was due to the introduction of reformulated gasoline.'' County air quality violated federal health standards, which are about 25 percent less stringent than the state's, only twice last year. That is the fewest federal violations since air quality monitoring began here in 1955, county officials said. By comparison, smog made the air unhealthy to breathe on 12 days in 1995 under the federal standard, 39 days in 1990 and 90 days in 1978. It was also the first year on record that all of the county's federal violations were caused by smog migrating south from Los Angeles and Orange counties. The state's refiners and service stations started selling the cleaner-burning fuel early last spring to meet state specifications for a fuel that produced fewer hydrocarbon and nitrogen emissions. Southern California's sunny summer and fall skies cook those emissions into a stew of pollutants, mostly ozone. Scientists say this lower-level ozone pollution never rises 18 miles or higher to merge with the ragged atmospheric ozone layer that shields the earth from ultra-violet radiation. Air quality also made dramatic gains last year in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which includes Los Angeles and Orange counties and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. As of the end of October, the end of the smog season, there had been seven Stage 1 smog alerts in the district, compared with 14 in 1995, 23 in 1994, and 40 in 1992. Such alerts are called when ozone levels are twice the federal health maximum. During the alerts, the public is advised to reduce strenuous activity. The last Stage 1 alert in San Diego County occurred in 1991. Peak ozone levels during smog sieges in 1996 were calculated to be 10 to 11 percent less severe than expected in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento area, said state Air Resources Board spokesman Allan Hirsch. ``Much of the state showed improvements in air quality in 1996, and cleaner burning gasoline was the main clean air measure that was introduced last year, so we think it had a significant effect,'' he said. ``We are very confident that the same thing occurred in San Diego County, too.'' Jan Cortez, program director for the San Diego-Imperial County branch of the American Lung Association, voiced concern that the drop in ozone pollution may cause people to overlook the danger of ultra-fine particulate matter--from diesel exhaust and various types of combustion--that the federal Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to regulate. ``The report doesn't even mention particulate air pollution, so it is giving the public only part of the picture,'' she said. The public is still breathing particulate pollution, she said, and it contributes to asthma attacks and increased visits to the hospital.'' The smog decline has not come without a price. The estimated $4 billion cost to retool refineries was considered an important factor in the steep rise in gasoline prices last spring and early summer. Many motorists still wonder how much the less-volatile fuel has reduced their gas mileage, although state spokesmen estimate the penalty at 1 to 3 percent. Averaging three-year periods, which minimizes the influence of weather, the number of days of ozone pollution in San Diego County under the state standard declined 55 percent between 1979-1981 and 1994-1996.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman from California, and I want to first clarify that the gentleman from Huntington Beach who just left has to qualify as the Member of Congress who is improving in surfing faster than any other Member of Congress.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much.

Mr. BILBRAY. And she was there doing a reporter's job about these citizens becoming the new U.S. citizens. One of them was her mother. And she came up to me and said, my mother is so proud. Not because she just passed the test, but she did it in English because she wanted to be mainstream American. And you could see in Maria's eyes, someone who has lived her whole life here, that lump in her throat. She was so proud of her mother wanting be mainstream American and proud to be an American. And that is what it is all about.

Mr. BILBRAY. In fact, let me tell you a story. An old, old friend of mine, a newscaster in San Diego, Maria Velazquez.

Mr. BILBRAY. He is from Brisbane. Queensland. He stood up and said, and this is a passivist, he said you are the greatest military power, the greatest strongest Nation in the world. You go all over the world to defend other people's borders and you cannot even defend your own. And I said, Jim, that is not the crime; that is not the sin. The crime and the sin is not that we cannot, but we choose not to.

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me just tell you what Australians say, though. When my cousin stood up at the border and stood up and watched 135 illegals run by us----

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me name you one that does not. It is the Republic of Mexico. When I met with the Senators and Congressmen of Mexico, I held up our new immigration law and held up their immigration law. And I said where we are changing it is to make ours more like yours. And when they looked at it, they said you are right, you are making your law more reasonable.

Mr. BILBRAY. I was on the House floor yesterday and a Member of Congress called me down because I said my cousin from Australia said, we hear you can just break your immigration law and then there is no problem. In Australia they have learned that if you fly to Tijuana and walk across the border, do not worry about it. You get in this country and you get more benefits if you break the rules than playing by the so- called silly rulings. That really scares me. Can you imagine what the rest of the world thinks of this country when they think of immigration issues; when they think about what kind of country would not only allow but telegraph around the world to come break our laws and we will reward you? This is the greatest Nation in the world.

Mr. BILBRAY. I hear they are trying to work this out to have it ready for tomorrow. And we have to work together. This is key. We have to cross the aisle and make sure Democrats and Republicans work on this, because, frankly, I think the American people are fed up with the partisan fighting, and I think the President and Mr. Panetta think that somehow it is an advantage by trying to mess with this immigration bill. It is really sad.

Mr. BILBRAY. They are meeting now, and I hope they work this out.