Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am just saying as somebody who spent 20 years in local government in a border community, I just heard that the Federal administration 2 years ago was out to reimburse for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. You know, all I got to say as somebody who had to run a criminal justice system for 2.6 million people, we did not see it. We did not see it.

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

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, last night President Clinton delivered a good speech. Our hope is that he follows his words with his deeds. President Clinton acknowledged in his address last night the need to pay special attention to our problems with illegal immigration. However, President Clinton forgot to mention to the American people that he vetoed a bill which would have provided Californians $1.6 billion in reimbursement funds over the next 5 years for the costs of providing health care to illegal immigrants. He also vetoed the 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act, thus denying Californians more than $300 million as reimbursement for the cost of incarcerating alien felons. Mr. President, your actions speak louder than words; and words alone will not solve our problem. This lack of attention has a human cost. Last year at San Diego's border with Mexico, a Border Partol agent fell to his death while chasing illegal immigrants. Last week, a man trying to evade U.S. Border Partol agents plunged to his death, and five other men were injured when they ran off a 120-foot cliff near Otay Lakes Dam. Words are hollow if they are not backed up with actions. Our hope in the California delegation is that President Clinton joins us with the force of his actions, as we address these difficult immigration problems.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as one of the freshmen who was proud to be sworn in this year, I do have to ask the gentlewoman from California to recognize that the experience that this Member brings to this House is 20 years of representing the public directly. In 1976, when Jimmy Carter was elected, I was elected to represent the people of the city of Imperial Beach. I was elected to be mayor. I was elected to be a county supervisor of 2.6 million people. I have some experience. But most importantly in this is every one of those 20 years, Mr. Speaker, I, as an elected official, and the body I served on did something that California, the State of the gentlewoman from California, demanded; we passed a balanced budget for our government agency every one of those 20 years. And so when a Member stands up here and says somehow because we have not been on this House floor for more than 12 months we are inexperienced, the experience that this Member brings is 20 years of balanced budgets. I wish this House had 20 years of experience balancing the budget.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as one of the individuals who has had the privilege of living along the Mexican border, I need to highlight that a continuing resolution will not address the outrageous situation along our border. Actually, this bill does include $500 million of reimbursement to State and local government for the cost of incarceration of criminal illegal aliens, Mr. Speaker. Also, there are 1,000 new Border Patrol agents to be put at the border and also 1,500 additional INS individuals to be put at the border. Mr. Speaker, if Members had seen the rape, the main, the loss of life along our frontiers, they would never want to support the status quo. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they really want to serve the status quo, even at the cost of the type of anarchy we are confronting on our border? We keep hearing about the need to fight for crime. Let me tell my colleagues that the fight against drugs, the fight against crime, and the fight against the injustices of illegal immigration starts at our borders, and it is time we have the guts to either admit that we do not want to control the border, or we start voting for the funding so we do our job at the border.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1058, and I rise in support for many reasons, but one of them being the fact that I think the American people have a chance today to see a bipartisan effort to protect the most critical resource of our country; that is, the ability of people to venture into agreements to invest their capital. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the things we see again and again, contrary to what some speakers would like to say, is that this is a bipartisan effort. You see the Representatives from California especially, from both sides of the aisle, do what we do not do enough, cross the aisle and work together for the benefit of the public. Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is not just an issue of jobs. This is not just an issue of investing money. This is an issue of life and death because the companies that are being attacked are not those that are big companies, but these are the small dynamic companies that are working on issues that are absolutely essential for our citizens, such as cures for cancer, looking for a cure for AIDS, looking for those items that will save lives. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support the override not just for the jobs, not just for the bipartisan effort, but for the citizens' lives too.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1787. First, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], who joined me in introducing this common sense correction bill back in June. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], who have guided this bill through subcommittee and committee and brought it to this process of corrections day with the support of the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. The focus of this bill's correction is a classic example of the need of the correction day and the intent that was stated by the Speaker in the days that he introduced it. This bill is a good example of how we can streamline existing law and make more sensible, effective law out of a system that needs updating. H.R. 1787 will eliminate a once-needed but now unnecessary regulation while continuing to provide consumer information and protection to small business owners and consumers alike. The need for this bill, Mr. Speaker, became apparent last year when 54 retail companies in California were served a complaint under the State's bounty hunter statute. This complaint alleged that the stores had failed to maintain a saccharin warning sign in violation of Federal law. In April of this year, more than 20 supermarket companies in North Carolina were threatened with lawsuits for failure to have the warning signs posted. Mr. Speaker, many of these stores that are affected are mom-and-pop operations and the signs might have got lost, might have been stolen, could have fallen behind the charcoal briquettes in the front of the store. They may have even been unaware that the regulation existed at all. In any event, I think we can agree that a lawsuit on this ground would qualify as ridiculous. H.R. 1787 removes this threat from small retailers around the country while continuing to require the consumer warnings continue to be placed on the packages of the products that contain saccharine. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter which underscores the need of H.R. 1787, which I would ask to be included in the Record, and it describes the writer's intent to sue a food store chain for $2.5 million for violating the saccharine warning notice requirement, and I quote from that letter: ``for the direct endangerment of my personal health over the years.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to say my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], who originally wrote the law, has reviewed my bill and agrees that while the warning notice requirement served its purpose in 1977, it is no longer required in 1995. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], his sense of historical perspective and the strong bipartisan support of my colleagues from this sensible and noncontroversial bill. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I need to say the American people want to see more bipartisan support, more bipartisan cooperation across the aisle, and they also want us to be brave enough to do what is best no matter which side brings up a good idea. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those things that needs to be improved. The original author recognizes that the time has passed for this regulation to be in force, and I ask the rest of the House to join with the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and this gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] in correcting a problem that should not be allowed to exist any further and also to prove that bipartisan support and cooperation is for the benefit of the American people who, after all, we all represent here in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, the letter is submitted for the Record, as follows: To whom it may concern: I , Herein wish to submit my intentions to file suit against the following food store chains. For the sum of $2.5 million dollars each. For the direct endangerment to my personal health over the years, through the consumption of hazardous products, and through the non compliance of the F.D.A. regulation 21-101.11. However, after speaking with an attorney in regards to this matter, it was suggested that I may have other opsections available such as (2) Reporting this to the commissioner of the F.D.A. (3) Report to the T.V., and news media how all 22 of the major food chains in the Wilmington area, Some how over looked an FDA public health warning regulation for years. Or, (4) Submit this letter to all the food chains or stores involved and hope to come to some kind of discreet, and brief respective financial compensation regarding this matter, on my behalf, without involving the F.D.A. or the publics opinion. Inclosed is a list of the stores, that are currently in direct violation of code 21-101.11 of the F.D.A. regulations.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to make a few facts clear to my colleagues. This conference report helps correct the injustices now brought by abusive strike suits, and restores a measure of fairness and sanity to our judicial system. Right now, American investors, consumers, and taxpayers are being taken to the cleaners by those who exploit the system for their benefit, not that of the little guy. A number of my colleagues have made statements that somehow this bill will pave the way for scoundrels and rascals to plunder innocent investors. Although I am only a freshman, let me assure these colleagues, who have been here longer than I, that the scoundrels and rascals are plundering investors right now. Without this bill, they will continue to do so. The strike suits that are filed by these rascals have the effect of hindering needed scientific research, stalling economic growth, and wasting time and taxpayer dollars within our judicial system. Strike suits in my San Diego district have forced small high- technology and biotechnology firms to devote scarce time and resources to questionable trial proceedings, rather than focusing on research and development for a drug or device which could help improve the quality of life for the ill or elderly. The investor and consumer is also hurt by these suits, because they destroy any incentive for firms to voluntarily make forward-looking information available, on which investors rely to make their own decisions. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is absolutely essential to my district, and my State of California. It is essential for the little guy in our society; the small investor, the small businessman, and patients and consumers. We should all support this bill, and send it to the President immediately to be signed into law.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to honor and commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the U.S. battleship, and the men who served on-board. The battleship has played a vital role as a symbol of U.S. power. President Theodore Roosevelt sent 16 battleships, known as the ``Great White Fleet,'' to sail around the world from 1906-1909 to demonstrate to European powers American strength and a willingness to use it to support our national interests. The U.S.S. Missouri (BB-63) epitomized the symbology of the battleship by serving as the platform for Japanese surrender at the conclusion of World War II. The battleship has served in every major conflict this century, including our most recent in the Persian Gulf. The first battleship, the U.S.S. Indiana (BB-1), was commissioned on November 20, 1895 and set sail under the command of Captain Robley D. Evans. At the beginning of the Spanish-American War, the Indiana helped define the United States as a great power, when she formed up with Admiral Sampson to intercept Spanish Admiral Cervera's squadron, which was positioning itself to defend Spain's colony on Cuba. The two forces clashed outside of Santiago, Cuba where the Indiana quickly sunk two Spanish destroyers, leading to the freedom of Cuba from Spain's dominion, and ushering in an era of the supremacy of the battleship. During World War II, the battleship played an important role in the defeat of the Axis powers. The South Dakota (BB-57), the North Carolina (BB-55) and the Washington (BB-56) helped to protect the first U.S. ground offensive of the Pacific at Guadalcanal. When General MacArthur made good his promise to return to the Philippines at Leyte Island in 1944, he came with battleships. The Maryland (BB-46), Pennsylvania (BB- 38), Tennessee (BB-43), West Virginia (BB-48) and the California (BB- 44), all resurrected from the disaster at Pearl Harbor, participated in the liberation of the Philippine Islands, seeing their most important action at the battle of Surigao Strait. In that battle, the battleships were tantamount in the effort to repulse the Japanese Navy, and saved the very vital supply ships. At Okinawa, one of the war's most difficult engagements, the battleships were able to repel Japaneses Kamikaze attacks while protecting the landing of the Marines. In the European theater, battleships played an important support role during the D-Day landing of allied forces at Omaha and Utah beaches. The U.S.S. Nevada (BB-36), Texas (BB-35), and the Arkansas (BB-33) were primary in this effort. Throughout the cold war, the Pentagon saw fit to recommission battleships for a variety of important roles. During the Korean War, the Iowa (BB-61), New Jersey (BB-62), Missouri (BB-63), and Wisconsin (BB-64) were dusted off and called on to support U.N. troops. They also served important missions to destroy enemy railroads and coastal artillery batteries. In Vietnam, the battleship returned to service to provide long range artillery support to ground troops. The New Jersey (BB-62) was praised for its ability to create a 200 yard wide helicopter landing zone out of a triple canopy jungle in record time. The battleship also saw active duty during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Outfitted with sophisticated Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles, and the Phalanx close-in weapons system, American battleships participated in the initial missile strikes against Baghdad, and in gunfire support of U.S. Marines during the ground offensive. Today, the battleships again lay idle, and their names have been stricken from the Naval register. Thankfully, they will be preserved as a symbol of U.S. strength, and in memorial to those who served and died in the service of their country. Mr. Chairman, the battleship is a proud testament to American Maritime power. I would like to submit for the record a list of names of the surviving battleship commanders. These men should be respected for the service they have provided to their country, and envied for their place in history. Congratulations to these survivors and to all who serve on this occasion, the hundredth anniversary of the American Battleship. Roster of Surviving Former Commanding Officers Who Commanded a United States Battleship uss iowa (bb-61) RADM. Fred J. Becton, USN (ret) RADM. J.W. Cooper, USN (ret) RADM. G.E. Gneckow, USN (ret) Capt. Fred P. Moosally, USN (ret) Capt. John P. Morse, U.S. Navy Capt. Larry P. Seaquist, USN (ret) uss new jersey (bb-62) RADM. W.M. Fogarty, USN (ret) RADM. W. Lewis Glenn, USN (ret) VADM. Douglas Katz, U.S. Navy RADM. Richard D. Milligan, USN (ret) Capt. Robert C. Peniston, USN (ret) RADM. J. Edward Synder, USN (ret) RADM. Ronald D. Tucker, U.S. Navy uss missouri (bb-63) Capt. James A. Carney, USN (ret) Capt. John Chernesky, USN (ret) Capt. A.L. Kaiss, USN (ret) uss wisconsin (bb-64) RADM. David S. Bill, U.S. Navy Capt. Jerry M. Blesch, USN (ret) RADM. G. Serpell Patrick, USN (ret) Capt. Coenraad van der Schroeff, USN (ret)

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, when I was sent to Congress, my top priority was balancing the Federal budget. The people of the 49th district told me over and over again that Washington's practice of leaving our children debt, instead of a brighter future, was unacceptable. The new majority in Congress heard this resounding mandate from the public, and we acted. We submitted the first balanced budget since 1969. President Clinton did not submit a balanced budget. Now we are faced with a stalemate between Congress and the President. I know that there is considerable public anger over what some may see as gridlock. However, I believe that this debate is about principles versus agendas. In our 7 year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, our tax cuts for working families were offset by reducing the growth of non-entitlement spending, while continuing on the glidepath to a balanced budget. We also eliminated the subsidy to the wealthiest senior citizens participating in Medicare part B--single seniors with incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $125,000 will begin to pay higher premiums. President Clinton refuses to embrace our commitment to the principle that we will no longer tolerate mortgaging our children's future; we promised to balance the budget and we kept that promise. President Clinton's agenda is diverting attention from the indisputable fact that he does not support a balanced budget. The Republican proposal for Medicare part B is included our measure to keep the Government running through December 1. President Clinton's states that his specific objection, and the reason for his veto of this measure, was over Medicare part B. Medicare part B is the voluntary program which covers doctor's visits and outpatient care. Because the program is voluntary beneficiaries have not paid into a trust fund, as they have for Medicare part A, the hospital portion. Under current law, beneficiaries pay 31.5 percent of the premium for part B. Taxpayers subsidize the rest of the premium. What we are proposing is to maintain the percentage at its current level--31.5 percent. Because the costs of the program will rise next year, as they have every year, the dollar amount will rise from $46.10 to approximately $53 in 1996--an approximately $8 per month increase. However, President Clinton is actually advocating dropping the percentage that premiums are calculated at to 25 percent and then raising them substantially again after the 1996 elections. The President is playing election year politics with the Medicare part B issue. He would cut revenues--by dropping the percentage to 25 percent--and then would have to raise the percentage again in order to make up for this shortfall. This is highly irresponsible. Not only does President Clinton oppose a balanced budget, but this position on Medicare part B means that he believes taxpayers should subsidize a higher share--75 percent--of the costs of this voluntary program. It is exactly this logic which has resulted in the inevitable insolvency of the Medicare program is nothing is done to save it. We have remained steadfast to the principle of our balanced budget; President Clinton has resorted to a diversionary political agenda rather than negotiating in good faith with Republicans. Nothing less than the future we leave to our children is at stake. [[Page E 2178]] The American people, who sent us here in the first place, know this and, I believe, support our efforts on our children's behalf.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that a lot of people out in the real world America are watching the Republicans and the Democrats arguing about the budget issue. And it is sort of interesting to see that people who claim to be protecting the seniors again and again would actually encourage a veto of a bill that would guarantee that something be stopped that the seniors of America have been sick and tired of having happened too often. I am just a freshman. I do not know about all these great tactics. But I know one thing: Seniors in my district are sick and tired of the Federal Government dipping into their reserve fund for Social Security and Medicaid and other reserve funds. They want that put aside for them, so that they have some guarantee. All this maneuvering may sound real good in Washington, but my seniors want the President and Congress to keep their fingers off the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund and the other trust funds and figure out how to run government without raiding those funds. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not here to speak about that today. I am here to sort of remind Washington, DC, of the realities of those of us that live along the border. I am privileged to represent the communities in San Diego that happen to be on the international frontier. Mr. Speaker, while we hear all about Washington, about how Operation Gatekeeper secured the border, that we have control, that do not worry about it, well, Mr. Speaker, I guess the message really struck home this week, because while Secretary Babbitt was visiting us in San Diego, Mr. Babbitt learned something that those of us in San Diego and along the border know all too often. He went out to get his van. It happened that his van was gone. The van had been stolen. Mr. Speaker, the fact is a day later his van was found. It has 39 illegal aliens in it going down the freeway. Welcome to San Diego and the border, Mr. Secretary. This is what we live with along the border every day of the year. The fact is those of us in the Southwest put up with our cars being stolen and shipped south and north, because of the no man's land that the Federal Government continues to allow to occur along the border, and the immorality of the Federal Government to have the gall to try to say that they have secured the area. I think it is terrible and propagates this concept that the people cannot trust Washington, especially when they know their cars are disappearing. I have one constituent that has gone out four times, and all he has left of the four cars that used to be there is a bag of plastic where they had torn up his car to be able to break in and take it. Not only do the cars go north, Mr. Speaker, but they also go south. We have been able to photograph Mexican Federal officials driving American cars down south. A lot of us supported free trade with Mexico, but let me assure you, this is not the free trade we had planned. And the Mexican officials do not even have the decency to take the license plate off the car. They still have California license plates out there, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Secretary Babbitt get together with the President and remind him that things are not under control along the border, that common decency says the Federal Government must straighten this out. And if he does not care about his own car, I ask that you recognize the same day this happened that tragedy occurred in the Tijuana River, where four illegal aliens tried to swim the river back because they were concerned about being caught by immigration officials and they drowned. There are four families in Mexico, Mr. Speaker, who are going to have bodies shipped back to them in body bags because they were told in Mexico come on into America. We will let you in illegally. And they tried it, and they are now dead, and their families are going to have to accept the body bags. That is the immorality, Mr. Speaker, of our American Government not controlling our national sovereignty. And in the words of the ex- Governor of Baja, CA, that ring quite clearly to those of us along the border, we need to recognize that American sovereignty is not only a right, it is a responsibility, and it is a responsibility of the Federal Government that they have to finally bear.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am just a freshman that came here this year, but as somebody who served in local government and was close to the people for over 20 years as a representative, the citizens kept asking, ``Why can't Washington produce a balanced budget,'' and now I understand after I have been here why Washington has not been able to do it, because there are always good excuses for voting no against a balanced budget, there is always some detail that is more important than balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to recognize that we are talking about something that everybody talks about but are not willing to do. I will not yield at this time, but, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to be able to celebrate with my daughter her birthday this week, and she would not know and does not know what a balanced budget means to her future, but there are people across this country that have children that are going to be moving into the market at the beginning of the next century, and there are children that are going to be graduating from high school in the year 2003, like my Briana and my Patrick, and all I ask this body to do is find reasons to say yes so their graduation present, Mr. Speaker, can be a balanced budget for their future.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would say I would rather stay here this week and this month to have a balanced budget than to go to all the birthday parties in the world.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has included the reference in the first section A to include the transportation, storage, discharge, and release of emissions or disposal thereof, which actually was part of our original bill that came out of committee. They have retained the other sections, except for in reference to cargo and transportation. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in behalf of the Committee on Agriculture, we have no objection.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 436), to require the head of any Federal agency to differentiate between fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, and vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in issuing certain regulations, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 436, and the Senate amendments thereto.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am a freshman. I have not been here before, but I do recognize the fact that the citizens of the United States want to get their fair share for their dollar spent. The colleagues to my left keep pointing out about Medicare. My seniors are saying, why pay more than twice the rate of inflation? Any good consumer would not only encourage that, they would demand that. That is all we are saying. Let me leave you with this: I keep hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who controlled this body for 40 years, saying that they support a balanced budget. As a freshman who has come here this year, my question to them is, why again and again ever since the 1960's have they not been able to present that balanced budget to the people? So all I ask them to do is quit finding excuses not to vote for a balanced budget. The American people want it. They are tired of the excuses from Washington, and they want us to prove that we can balance the budget just like they do every day of their lives.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as county supervisor in 1994, I asked the Clinton administration to declare a Federal emergency over illegal immigration in San Diego County. That year my county reduced its contract with UCSD Medical center to provide emergency services to indigent patients by 50 percent or a total of $5 million. The Board of Supervisors implemented this reduction based on estimates that half of the indigent patients receiving emergency care at UCSD were illegal immigrants, and that these costs should not be the burden of local government. President Clinton, who denied my request to declare a state of emergency in 1994, is now threatening to veto our balanced budget package. He should think long and hard about denying hospitals funds to ensure that they can keep providing services to our most vulnerable citizens. His veto threat particularly jeopardizes California hospitals keeping their emergency room doors open to everyone. President Clinton allocated only $150 million in his budget to States nationwide for health care for illegal immigrants. The 7 year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, contains funding to reimburse hospitals for health care which they are required to provide to illegal immigrants. An approximately $3 billion trust fund will be made available to States most severely impacted by illegal immigration; California will receive the largest share since it has the highest population of illegals in the Nation. What we have created is a pot of money to pay hospitals for the services the Federal Government requires them to provide. It is unprecedented. Previously, the State and local governments and hospitals have borne the responsibility for the Federal Government's failure to secure our borders. Now, for the first time, hospitals will send the bill for illegal immigrants health care where it rightfully belongs: to Washington, DC. What we have seen in California is a direct consequence of the Federal Government's failure to secure our borders. Our ability to provide health care to our poor and disabled citizens is being jeopardized by the increasing costs of providing health care to illegal aliens. I would point to Los Angeles County health care system's near collapse as an example of the strain providing care to illegal immigrants places on emergency rooms already stretched beyond their resources. An estimated 96,000 babies will be born to undocumented women covered by Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, at a cost of $230 million in medical bills this year. Because hospital workers are prohibited by law from asking a patient's immigration status, these costs are absorbed and paid for out of other parts of the hospital's budget. An increasing share of these dollars must cover the costs of California's large, and growing, illegal immigration population. The trust fund we are creating today represents the first time that Congress accepts that providing emergency health care services to illegal immigrants is a Federal responsibility, not a State responsibility. Past Congresses have failed in this regard. Today, we take the first step toward addressing this problem. I look forward to working with Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole as we toward reconciling the differences between the House and Senate budget bills and allocating California, and other States, their fair share of these funds. [From the Blade-Citizen, La Costa, CA, Aug. 26, 1994] Wilson, Bilbray ask Clinton for Declaration (By Michael J. Williams) San Diego.--First District Supervisor Brian Bilbray, with the support of Gov. Pete Wilson, on Thursday called for President Clinton to declare a federal emergency over illegal immigration in San Diego County. The demand, made at a press conference at the UCSD Medical Center, comes in the midst of publicity surrounding a wave of Cuban immigrants to Florida. The flood of immigrants inspired Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles to declare a state of emergency and mobilize National Guard troops in his state. But illegal immigration into San Diego County is as chronically heavy as Florida influxes like the Mariel boat lift in 1980, said Bilbray, the Republican candidate for the 49th Congressional District. According to Bilbray, the influx of Cubans and Haitians to Florida's shores pales compared to the wave of immigrants crossing the international border into San Diego County. ``There are 500 people a day coming into Florida, the governor declared an emergency and the president responded,'' Bilbray said in an interview following the press conference. ``We've got three times that number every night. If you're going to hold the line in Miami, doggone it, we're part of the country too.'' In the press conference, Bilbray announced that he intends to ask his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 20 to adopt a resolution declaring a state of emergency. The resolution also asks the governor to seek federal interdiction of illegal immigrants at the border and reiterates a demand of reimbursement to the state and county for the cost of providing services to illegal immigrants. ``The president said that the days of ignoring this problem are over with,'' Bilbray said. ``He's doing it in Miami, and he ought to be doing it in California. We have the just right to make sure our resources are being used to stop illegal aliens and drugs from crossing the border here.'' Wilson, who is campaigning to keep his gubernatorial seat, stated his support for the resolution, which echoes demands he made of the federal government earlier this year. Immigrant rights advocates have decried the demands as campaign tactics and disputed the claims that immigrants are costing the state billions of dollars in health and social services.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, not too long ago I got a call from a senior citizen in my county about the fact that she was billed for two mammograms. When she confronted the billing agent on it, they assured her that she was wrong and she was just a senior, just a senior and did not understand. The mistake is the seniors understand. This women pointed out that it was physically impossible for her to have two mammograms, because she had had surgery 2 years before, and when this billing agent found out about their mistake, the comment was ``Well, it is not your money, ma'am. Why are you worried about it?'' For too long, people have been saying to the seniors ``It is not your money, do not worry about it.'' The seniors care. In this bill, we are going to fight fraud by creating a neighborhood watch strategy for fighting Medicare fraud. We are going to allow the seniors to participate, not only in choosing their program for their health care, but also participate in fighting fraud. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this concept, because I think if we really want to be serious about fighting fraud, then have the guts to allow the seniors to participate in these programs and approve this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Medicare package before us today. The Republicans have proposed cutting $270 billion out of the Medicare system. They did not choose $270 billion because it is needed to save the trust fund, or because there is $270 billion worth of waste, fraud, and abuse in the system, or because cutting $270 billion will improve seniors' health. They chose $270 billion because they have a huge fiscal hole to fill--a hole created by an unnecessary and irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy. The Republicans have committed to balancing the budget, increasing spending on defense, and cutting taxes. If revenues are going down by $245 billion, and you're going to balance the budget, you've got to raid the bank somewhere else. That somewhere else is Medicare. The Republican plan is not driven by a desire to save Medicare. Ninety-three percent of Republicans voted against the Medicare Program at its creation. Ninety-nine percent of House Republicans voted to cut more than $280 billion out of the program in 1995. This Republican plan is a stake in the heart of the medical insurance program 37 million seniors from all walks of life rely on for their health security. The Republican plan will increase charges to seniors with an average income of $13,000 per year so that people with incomes of $350,000 per year can get a $20,000 dollar tax cut. I don't think that's fair, and I don't believe it's right. The Republican plan will undermine Medicare in other ways as well. Medicare-plus Programs will be allowed to cherry-pick low risk seniors, leaving traditional Medicare subject to the higher costs of adverse selection. The plan creates incentives for doctors and hospitals to leave traditional Medicare for Medicare-plus options that permit them to charge seniors higher fees--creating the probability that seniors who cannot afford higher Medicare-plus charges will be unable to find doctors and hospitals willing to treat them. And, the plan actually weakened sanctions against waste, fraud and abuse. I believe that we need to take steps to fix what's broken with Medicare. We must crack down on the waste, fraud, and abuse. I know that seniors are willing to bear their fair share of the costs of balancing the Federal budget for our children and grandchildren. But this debate is not about fixing what's wrong. It's not about changing the parts of Medicare that don't make sense. It's about charging seniors more for health care. It's about giving seniors less for their Medicare dollars. And it's about filling the tax cut hole. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican Medicare plan. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is really sad that we have try to reinforce the public's perception of lack of trust in Washington with the MediScare tactics. Only in Washington could a 42- to 45-percent increase be called a cut. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say that may be working with words and may be working with numbers. Per person we are talking about going from $4,800 to $6,700, a $1,900 increase. Now, any senior knows if their insurance company told them ``We are going to increase your rates by $1,900, and that is a cut, a slashing of your rates,'' the senior would say, ``You are crazy.'' If you want to know a special interest group that is driving this Member, my seniors from AARP, 20 members have been advising me on this item. Their advice is why do we allow more than the rate of inflation? We are proposing twice the rate of inflation, Mr. Speaker. Twice the rate of inflation is what our projections are.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I think one of the sad things about this Mediscare tactic is that the people that are trying to pull this off, the old establishment in Washington that cannot cope with the fact that it is time to move upward and onward to improve on the past and not allow the old systems to just collapse after 37 years. But I think what they really miss here with the Mediscare is that as the seniors find out about this problem, as they are being educated about this problem, their credibility and the credibility of the Washington establishment is slowly but surely crumbling more and more with this big lie that is going out there. I have advertisements running in my district attacking me on certain positions and they have not even taken the decency to check my vote. My colleague from Louisiana knows, because he serves on the Committee on Commerce with me that are working on this bill that the facts that we know and the facts that we are explaining to our seniors are nothing like the big lies that the Mediscare advertisements are saying out there. That, they really feel, will win them points. The seniors know what is going on. They are very sophisticated. I am getting 80 percent of my calls coming in saying, ``We don't believe these Mediscare tactics, keep going.'' I hope that the colleagues who are on the other side of the aisle who think that Mediscare will benefit them, it is destroying what little credibility that this town has left. We need to shoot straight and be up front with the public, and I think this is a classic example where they are saying what sounds good right now to scare people, and the more people are learning, the more they are saying it is the same old garbage from Washington, ``They are trying to manipulate us and scare us so they can maintain their power base they have always had.'' And at what cost? I mean, how many of us as a consumer would accept a product being sold to us three times more expensive every year than the rate of inflation? I do not care even if the system was not crashing, as the President's trustees say, if we could not manage a program, and I say this as someone who managed local government for 20 years, if we cannot manage a program with the cost increasing twice the rate of inflation, if the Democrats and Republicans cannot manage a health care program twice the rate of inflation, then none of us should be here. We should all go home and let the seniors run it.