Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following editorial from the San Diego Union Tribune, dated September 22, 1995, be inserted in the Record. The Medicare Debate (By Brian Bilbray) The current radio and television ad campaign employed to derail Medicare reform efforts reminds me of a B horror movie--a ridculous script, unbelivable characters and a wildly exaggerated villian. If the big-labor-financed advertisements running against me in San Diego weren't so distorted and outrageous they would be humorous. But there is nothing funny about the impending bankruptcy of the health-care system upon which 37 million American seniors now depend. However, the distortions and scare tactics surrounding the debate do a great disservice to seniors and those of us in Congress who wish to arrive at a reasonable solution to preserve the system. As we begin to debate the specifies of Republican proposals to reform Medicare, we will keep in mind what the opponents of Medicare reform have forgotten: The future of Medicare depends upon a dialogue, not a shouting match. The real villains are those who cheapen the debate and contribute no ideas or solutions of their own. The Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, introduced in the House of Representatives this week, is a starting point for debate, not the final product for reform. Since April, when President Clinton's trustees warned that the system would be bankrupt by the year 2002, I have met with seniors, doctors and hospital administrators in San Diego. They provided me with input and ideas, which have become part of the proposal we are now debating in Congress. The Republican plan is based upon the belief that individuals will make better choices about their health care than the government. Seniors will be able to choose from the same types of health-care plans now found in the private sector. If a senior is now spending a great deal of out-of- pocket expense on MediGap insurance to cover prescription drugs, he or she can choose not to enroll in ``traditional'' Medicare and may instead want to pick a plan that includes drug coverage. Seniors also will have an option of a ``MediSave'' program, in which a high-deductible policy is purchased and the government deposits money to cover that deductible in an interest-bearing account in a bank of their choice. This gives them complete control over important medical decisions, with their doctors, without worrying about an insurer's or Medicare's payment policies. The bill introduced this week also exposes the shameless fear tactics of the past few months which have alleged that premium costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare Part B will drastically increase. Today, seniors pay premiums that are 31.5 percent of Part B costs. Under our proposal, the premiums will continue to be calculated that way, so that they will increase slightly every year, just as they have done since the inception of the program. Beneficiaries will not face any increase in deductibles and co-payments, in contrast to what our critics are claiming. Under our proposal, doctors and hospitals will be allowed to form provider-service networks to cover Medicare benefits, without the insurance company or managed-care company as an intermediary. A group of doctors or hospitals functioning as a network would be required to meet solvency and marketing requirements. Per-beneficiary contributions will be adjusted for age and other factors so that Medicare is providing funds according to need. The health-care dollars spent by a senior in San Diego may be drastically different than those spent by a senior in Nashua, N.H.--our plan provides for this flexibility. Every Medicare provider must agree to take all applicants and allow participants to stay in the plan as long as they want; no one will be shut out due to an illness or a pre-existing condition. How do Republicans reduce Medicare's rate of growth--one that has been running at hyperinflationary levels? Two ways: Increased health-care choices for seniors who will spend their dollars more efficiently, and increased competition between providers. In addition, the Medicare Preservation Act will shrink the subsidy Medicare currently provides to more affluent seniors. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a 65-year-old couple, both retiring this year, will collect $126,000 more from Medicare than they paid in during their working years. For millions of seniors, this subsidy is vital to their retirement income security, but this is a luxury the taxpayers cannot afford for wealthier seniors. Single seniors with incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000 will begin to pay higher premiums instead of receiving a subsidy from the taxpayers. The scare tactics and misinformation campaign designed to derail Medicare reform will continue. However, senior participants in the system know that doing nothing to save Medicare is not an option. The calls I have received from seniors in San Diego have been overwhelmingly against the ``Mediscare'' advertisements. As one woman from La Jolla asked, ``How gullible do the labor unions think we are? Preservation of Medicare means reform, and as long as reform continues to involve dialogue with San Diegans, I have more confidence in the process.'' I agree, and I urge opponents of Medicare reform to focus on the process of debate, don't further debase the process.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] for bringing forth this proposal, because I think it really is a determining factor of the credibility of our democratic processes that we have not only here in the United States but I think we need to recognize in many parts of our States separately. Mr. Chairman, this is not about 187. That is water under the bridge. But it is about the credibility of the Federal Government's commitment to the right of voters to have that right executed, the voting rights concept. There are two ways to deny a citizen the right to be able to express themselves through the ballot box. One way is the old way that was addressed in 1965. That is not allow them to the ballot box at all. Never let them drop their vote certificate in that. That was addressed in the 1965 law. But now we have this new insidious approach that says, let us wait for them to drop the ballot in the box and then let us erase every ballot in that box by going to one judge who will override the democratic process by that judge's own process. For good reason in the 1970's, we pointed out that we needed, in 1976, that we needed to make sure that we defended this most sacred right of democracy, the right to express yourself at the polls by having a three-judge requirement. And we can talk all we want, about that it is only one part of this country that law was meant to apply to. But I am sorry, the last time I read the law, it applies to us all, and it applies to California, Michigan, Connecticut, and, yes, to Louisiana. We are asking, with this law that Mr. Bono has brought up, that we defend the whole foundation of democracy just as much after the ballots have been dropped as we have before the ballots. I think that it is appropriate that we follow this, Mr. Chairman. I am rather distressed that democracy, as we know it, can somehow be expendable. I ask those who claim to be from the Democratic Party to one time stand up and support the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] in his quite rational and logical defense of the democratic process.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Justice Clark was clarifying that it is not a totally different issue and that has not been overturned yet. The letters from the judges, as somebody who ran a county of 2.5 million full of judges, I know what the process likes to be and would like to be. They have to follow the Constitution too. Mr. Chairman, this clarifies the fact that again, if the 3-judge process has worked and continues to work with reapportionment, then all parts of activity that relate to reapportionment should be following the same rule. Mr. Chairman, I insist that we recognize that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] is only reinforcing a ruling that was made by the Supreme Court and basically statutorily corrects an inconsistency that we have detected recently. And we not only have the right [[Page H 9625]] to correct this inconsistency; we have the responsibility.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing references to 187, and all I have got to say it is not even 5 million we are talking about. We are talking about the almost 10 million people, because people voted for and against, through their electoral process, for the initiative. And fine, that is one thing. But I am talking about consistency now and let us talk about the Constitution and the concepts of the Constitution. The fact is, right now we have a process with three judges for reapportionment and that has stood since the 1940's and was reaffirmed by the Congress back in 1976, that we were going to maintain that. What has happened is that we have found a glitch where the existing statutes do not follow Supreme Court ruling and that it is inconsistent. The proposal of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] makes the law consistent with the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution. So this act is a constitutionally compatible activity. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues, in Baker versus Carr, Justice Clark said, and I quote, ``By the use of a referendum, a State is reapportioned into single voting district to vote directly on legislation.'' All the legislation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] is saying is that we are going to be consistent now with the Supreme Court ruling. It is really talking about: Let us have our laws reflect the Constitution as clarified by the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep saying about the Constitution is supreme and we should follow it, and I agree. But here we have a Supreme Court ruling that says: This is a constitutional issue and this is a Voting Rights Act issue. It is not a Crime Act issue; it is not a drug issue; it is not a violent crime issue. It is a Voting Rights Act issue. Mr. Chairman, there are Members of this Congress who have been here since 1976 and who supported having the three-judge process for reapportionment. I have not heard horror stories about how terrible and how absolutely outrageous this process has been since then. It has worked for reapportionment. Under Justice Clark's ruling, all the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] says is let us reflect the fact that the initiative process is a reapportionment issue and should be treated equal to with the same process that reapportionment has had since the 1940's and was specifically retained by this Congress back in 1976. Mr. Chairman, I have to say to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], if it is going to cause so many problems to follow the lead of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] on this thing, then why was this law not changed in 1976? Why did we not have these conditions before?

Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, it is quite invigorating to see Members of Congress coming back from time in their districts. It is as if they have gotten a breath of fresh air of reality every once in a while. And I guess that is the best thing about Members of Congress going back to their districts. They leave the stifling air of Washington, where people start believing their own lies, and they go and really touch base with the real people who make this country operate, not those of us that stay within the beltway. I have to say, though, it is sort of interesting to see how fired up Members are at this time and then watch how it tapers off. I was quite interested in the gentlewoman from Colorado stating that somehow this Congress is not moving its budget agenda along quick enough, and that how previous Congresses had done it so much more quickly. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to point out that the fact is, yes, previous Congresses have moved along the budget, but when you move garbage fast, it is still garbage. An unbalanced budget is an unbalanced budget. We may be taking a little more time because we are doing something that has not been done in too long a period, and that is we are going to have a balanced budget design for the next 7 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about influence of lobbyists here in Congress. But I was here a year ago, and now I am here as a Member of Congress, and there is a big difference, and I want the members of the public to understand. You watch what is said and talked about here on the floor, but it is what happens off this floor that you really have to be aware of. Those of you that are in the gallery, if you come down on this floor now you do not see the floor lined with lobbyists, you do not see Members of Congress having to run a gauntlet of influence peddlers trying to get to a Congress Member before they vote because the new majority, the new Republican majority has done what the Democratic majority refused to do for 40 years: Tell the lobbyists to get off this floor and leave it for legislation. So all this talk about reducing the influence of lobbyists I think sounds great on the floor, but actions speak louder than words. And for those who want to come to Washington to see the difference, as a citizen I was shocked at how many lobbyists were on this floor a year ago. And as a legislator I am proud of what Newt Gingrich and the leadership with Mr. Armey has done to make sure we straighten this out. Mr. Speaker, I have here an edition of Surfer Magazine that was given to me by a surfer, $35. It was a gift because they wanted me to read the environmental issues that surfers are concerned about. At the same time, a political action committee can donate almost $10,000 to me politically every cycle. For the minority, the Democratic Party, to sit and say they want to limit the influence of lobbyists and special interests by talking about what kind of gifts we can take, when they are actively protecting the right of special interest groups to load money up into political action committees and drop thousands of dollars on us that an individual could not do, I think is really cynical. I will leave this challenge to the new minority: That if you really wanted to limit the influence of special interest groups, let us support the Wamp Congress Act, Zach Wamp's proposal, which means a political action committee can only give as much as an individual can give. Let us empower individuals to influence Congress as much as we empower the political action committees and the special interest groups. Let us have the guts to really talk about it. You talk about the donation to this Member, but the fact is that $10,000 around being pumped into a Member has a hell of a lot more influence than what anything we are talking about. I do not play golf, so I am not worried about this issue, but I do worry about the influence of political action committees. I call on you to join with Members on both sides of the aisle in limiting the level of contributions that political action committee can make, and make it equal to what an individual citizen of the United States can make to a Member of Congress. Let us raise the individual contribution to $2,000 for an individual and let us lower the political action committee's contribution to $2,000, and then we can talk about what kind of influence the political action committees and the lobbyists have on this Congress. We have cleared this floor of the lobbyists, let us clear the air. Let us not be self-righteous at this time and talk about a contribution from a surfing magazine. Let us talk about the thousands of dollars that political action committees pump into our campaigns, and let us all work together to limit that and encourage individual contributions, individual influence, not lobbyists' influence, not PAC influence.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. and Mrs. Morton Ochs Heinrich of La Jolla, CA, as they celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary on the 14th of August. Mr. Heinrich is also retiring this year after working for over 43 years as one of America's top experts in the field of lightweight, antisubmarine torpedos. Mrs. Heinrich is a community leader and a lawyer, who continues to this day to provide free legal services to senior citizens in San Diego. Together, the Heinrichs' represent the best that America has to offer and are a shining example of an American Family. A native of New York, Mr. Heinrich graduated from the Bronx High School of Science and the University of Oklahoma. He began his career in 1951 at China Lake, in the high California desert, and quickly moved to a posting in Pasadena, CA. He settled in San Diego in 1974. He has been cited many times over the past four decades for his work in the design, development, test, and production support of the Navy's mark 32, mark 46, and mark 50 torpedoes. He holds a patent on the mark 46's acoustic homing system, which went into the fleet in 1967 and remains the Navy's standard lightweight torpedo. In 1984, he was awarded the Naval Ocean Systems Center's Lauritsen-Bennett Award, the highest award given by the center. For over 40 years, his leadership in both the public and private sector has been instrumental in maintaining the high state of readiness our naval forces rely upon to meet the global commitments with which they are tasked. A native of Clayton MI, Mrs. Heinrich has been active in the community for over 25 years as a bridge teacher. After having raised two children, Mrs. Heinrich completed law school, passing the bar in 1989. For the last several years, Mrs. Heinrich has done volunteer legal work at San Diego Senior Citizens Legal Services. Their two children have been role models themselves. Their son, Mark, is a 1975 graduate of La Jolla High School, a 1979 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and a 1989 graduate of the University of Kansas Graduate Business School. He is currently a commander in the Navy, assigned to the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, Commander Heinrich, his wife, Judy, and their two sons currently live in Fairfax, VA. Their daughter, Marjorie, is a 1979 graduate of La Jolla High School, a 1983 graduate of the University of California at Berkley and a 1986 graduate of the Golden Gate University Law School. She is currently a partner in the Oakland, CA, law firm of Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert. Miss Heinrich currently lives in Oakland, CA. Morton and Eileen Heinrich have been totally committed to excellence, both in their public lives and in their efforts to raise their family. As a lawyer in San Diego, Eileen Heinrich has been a role model for others half her age. As a public servant for over 30 years and as an expert in this field for over 40 years, Morton Henrich has been a tremendous steward of the public's trust. Mr. Speaker, Mort and Eileen Heinrich represent a tremendous example of an American success story; a couple of modest means who have served both the country and the community. It is only fitting that we should recognize their many accomplishments as pillars of the community. I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in wishing this great American couple every success in the future and congratulations on their 40th wedding anniversary.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, for the last 10 years, I have had the privilege of administering many Federal programs for and to the people, 2\1/2\ million, in San Diego County. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are sick and tired of hearing me point out all the terrible bad regulations that do not work. I will continue to do so. They will continue to be sick of it. But I think there is a responsibility here to point out the ones that do work. I have to regretfully oppose the amendment of my dear friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, because if there is any program that I really believe did work, especially as somebody who desperately wanted to see abortions become a thing of the past, title X was the one thing as a local administrator that I was able to do, to avoid something that I felt very strongly about and that is trying to keep abortion out of the formula, as options for birth control. I have to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] and support him because a dose of reality that I came here to try to bring to the Democratic Party also must be brought to both sides.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am just a freshman. I grew up on the Mexican border. I thought I knew what bilingualism was. Now that I am here in these Chambers, I think we need to warn the American people that what we hear here in the House is not English, it is Washingtonese, when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about cutting Medicare. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely absurd when we look at the numbers, in that what is being proposed by the Republican majority is for each recipient's Medicare funds to go from $400 a month to $561 a month. In plain English, that is an increase. Only in Washington and only with the Democratic minority could they call that a decrease. Mr. Speaker, I think that seniors of the United States know an increase and know a decrease when they hear it. I just hope that when they hear the minority speaking on the other side of the aisle about a cut on Medicare that they start remembering that is Washingtonese for meaning that we are not going to spend three times the rate of inflation on providing health care. No consumer should allow his or her Medicare or health care to increase three times faster than inflation. What we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense approach to increasing our funding, but trying to control the overhead.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as somebody who lives on the border, but as someone who was a mayor and a county supervisor, I recognize that law enforcement, neighborhood law enforcement, was the No. 1 responsibility of a locally elected official and a responsibility. The Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility was the integrity of our national frontiers, and it was nice when the Federal Government helped us with our local responsibilities. It was a great effort. But those of us that are impacted severely by the abandonment of the Federal Government of their No. 1 obligation needs to have redresses of those problems, and I say this to my colleague, ``I understand your concerns, but you take care of your obligations before you start issuing people gifts, and this is a moral obligation.'' Mr. Chairman, the fact is the State of California spends $400 million-plus. In the existing formula, existing formula, there will still be a $100 million debt owed to that one State. Now this is an obligation that my colleagues may say we can walk away from for a while, but the obligation to protect our borders is a responsibility. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't abandon it because it is coming your way.''

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 575, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ''no.'' personal explanation

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure my colleagues understand this is not a coastal vote. Those of us that really want to see environmental strategies work and want to see cooperative efforts between the local governments and the Federal Government need to support this motion. Those of us that want to see the old command-and- control environmental regulations done away with and new progressive, aggressive environmental preservation move forward need to stand up and support this motion because it is really showing the kind of things that we can do right in protecting our environment, and I pointed out where we have done wrong, and I will continue to fight what we have done wrong, but I think we have an obligation when we point out where environmental regulations are wrong to also stand up for it when they are right, and this program and this strategy is one that we should support. So I ask those of my colleagues that want to protect private property rights, want to protect local control, now is the time to join with us that really want to protect the environment, to protect those rights and protect the environmental by supporting this cooperative effort between the Federal Government and the citizens at large.

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, environmental regulation should not be punitive. This motion is a punitive action. It is a devious approach to shelve this whole proposal because there is no statement in here of reporting back. It is specifically to kill this proposal, and the fact is the gentleman from California knows the clean ocean plan in California and knows that it has solid removals that are not at 30, but at 75, so worse-case scenario. Maybe the problem is that we are each talking to different environments here. The gentleman is talking about people who have discharge in the shallow lakes, shallow bays, rivers, and the gentleman wants to punish San Diego because they happen to have a situation that the scientists and the people who study this issue point out that this environmental regulation, as presented, is inappropriate and that the constant attacks at trying to pull this off of the back of the ratepayers in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] and pull it off the backs of the impact on the beaches in my district is absolutely absurd for the gentleman to continue this unless all the gentleman feels is the fact that my constituents had to spend money on this issue. So I do not care about the benefit to the environment, I do not care about it if it is going to hurt. My biggest concern is I want to get San Diego. [[Page H 7575]] Well, remember there are a whole lot of working-class people in San Diego. They are Democrats and Republicans, and they are independents, and their environment is just as important as the gentleman's environment, and, if the gentleman's environment was being hurt, we pull together to work with the gentleman, but our environment is being hurt by the regulation, and, just as much as the gentleman had a responsibility to go to secondary to help the environment, we have just as much responsibility to not go to the----

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as someone who just came from the private and public sector out there, trying to address environmental problems, into this House, I was rather confused as to where the opposition to this bill came from. Now I understand, and it is a total misconception of the text, and I would like to point out to my colleagues that once you find out the facts and the data here, it is quite obvious that anybody reasonable would address this. Some have said this is a partisan proposal. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] can agree on anything, that is not only bipartisan, it is bipolar. The fact is I would say this to my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, look at who is supporting this and try to find a reasonable reason why reasonable people cannot sometimes, though their politics may be different, come to a reasonable conclusion backed up by science. My colleague from New Jersey raised the concern about pollution and the problems there. Let me point out that the California plan is twice as stringent as the New Jersey contact water standards, that if New Jersey had this plan, we would probably be able to avoid a lot of problems. I am quite concerned about the last speaker from Pennsylvania pointing out saying it is just money that we are talking about and if it is just money, why do we not allow cities to dump raw sewage and overflow into our waterways. I think what has happened is, because my colleague from Pennsylvania missed the point here, this is not talking about just money, we are talking about the fact that the environmental impact report that was drawn up in the 1980's pointed out that going to this secondary mandate was going to be an adverse environmental impact. In fact, if any reasonable person looked at the environmental impact report, it said that the no-project option was the environmentally preferred alternative. So I hope my colleague from Pennsylvania recognizes this is not just money we are talking about here. This is talking about protecting the environment. The public review that was brought up by the gentleman from California, I would like to point out that not only does this maintain the public review process, constantly maintains it in the same 5-year cycle as existing law, but it also continues to require over 250,000 tests be made annually, 250,000 tests for pollution and environmental impact, the most extensive testing in the United States, in fact, so extensive that the EPA has contracted with the city of San Diego to do their testing for the northern Baja California area. Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is does the environmental regulation take precedence; does the process and [[Page H 7572]] the procedure in Congress take precedence over the environment of our country? This is clearly an issue where you have to recognize that the scientists of the National Academy of Sciences, 33 scientists of Scripps Oceanography, the most highly noted oceanographic institution in the world, have said that we should not be requiring San Diego to go ahead with secondary. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you do not believe in the scientists, if you do not believe in commonsense application of our environmental regulations, what do you believe in? Do you believe that the regulation is more important than the environment? I hear this is where the real test is. Mr. Speaker, as somebody who not only spends a lot of time surfing and sailing in this ocean we are talking about, but as someone who has fought long and hard to clean up environmental problems along the border and along our beaches, it is quite frustrating to see colleagues who mean well for the environment but are not willing to recognize problems even when the scientists and the facts tell you this should be changed. I am placing at this point in the Record a letter from James Strock, from the California EPA, which clearly points out the California ocean plan will continue to be enforced, the EPA will continue to have public hearings every 5 years and will continue to either permit or not permit the continuation of the discharge at the present location. Mr. Strock points out that the continuing information will constantly be used to determine if this process should go forward, and if this law should apply. Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to the fact, do my colleagues in Congress care more about 27 pounds of studies and the $1\1/2\ million that is wasted? And that is $1\1/2\ million that could be used for taking care of the 300 plus beach closures we have had in my district, and not one of them, not one was contributed to by the treatment problem or treatment issue, not one out of over 300, and I am saying to you, please, colleagues, join with us. The gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], if we can see the light, if we can see the facts, if we can see the environmental stakes that are here, please, take a look at the fact that maybe those who swim and live on this ocean, those who will live with the successes and failures there, maybe we do have the ability to observe problems in the existing law and threats to existing environmental issues, and maybe you will come across and recognize that this is a bipartisan project to protect the environment and join with us in protecting the environment. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Speaker, this morning we will be considering H.R. 1943, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act of 1995, under Speaker Gingrich's Correction Calendar. I have had the opportunity to speak with many of you regarding this important issue, and appreciate the high level of interest which has been expressed in fixing this problem. Under current law, coastal dischargers like San Diego are required to provide traditional secondary treatment of their municipal sewage discharges. However, the secondary sewage regulation--part of the original Clean Water Act written in 1972--was intended for cities and municipalities which discharge into rivers and lakes, and shallow estuaries. Scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the National Academy of Sciences, and the California EPA all agree that because of its deep ocean outfall, its industrial pretreatment process and chemically enhanced primary treatment--chemical secondary--the present sewage treatment program utilized by San Diego does not harm the ocean environment. Because of the extensive scientific evidence documenting this situation, which is unique to San Diego, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act provides permanent relief from the secondary sewage regulation. As I have talked to you separately about this legislation, I have noticed several recurring questions which are very important, and for which I want to ensure the correct answers are available. The latest and timeliest document to add to evidence that this regulation is unnecessary for San Diego is the following letter from Jim Strock, the Secretary of Environmental Protection for the California Environmental Protection Agency, to Chairman Shuster of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in strong support of H.R. 1943. This letter leaves absolutely no question as to the scientific validity and environmental soundness of H.R. 1943. I would like to read excerpts of the letter and include it for the Record: There has been some concern expressed in the past about whether or not the Ocean Plan Standards are enforceable in federal waters more than four miles offshore. However, H.R. 1943 clearly requires compliance with Ocean Plan Standards, and therefore would be applicable to the Point Loma (San Diego) outfall despite its termination in federal waters. This document (the State Plan) is the basis for NPDES permits for ocean discharges within California, and contains over 200 standards--making it the most comprehensive state- adopted plan in the nation. There have been public allegations that under H.R. 1943, San Diego would be allowed to discharge raw sewage or partially treated sewage. That simply is not the case. The effluent from the Point Loma treatment plant is required to meet all State Ocean Plan standards, and will continue to be permitted by California on this basis. This permit will be renewed every five years, with full public review and input. * * * San Diego is required to continue its in-depth monitoring program to ensure compliance with all standards and full protection of the ocean. Reports are submitted monthly, quarterly, and annually providing all the data that confirms compliance with permit requirements and attainment of the Ocean Standards. * * * we (Cal EPA) urge support for H.R. 1943 because current monitoring and data analysis demonstrates that the ocean waters offshore of the Point Loma treatment plant are fully protected. Continuing compliance with the California State Ocean Plan--including changes to the Plan reflecting evolving and increasing scientific knowledge--will assure that all the necessary protection remains in full force in the future. My colleagues, that last sentence says it all. The feds at EPA who have tried to force San Diego to comply with a Federal regulation scientifically proven to be unnecessary should pay close attention to their counterparts at the California EPA who have concluded that it makes no sense to comply with the secondary sewage regulation. California Environmental Protection Agency July 21, 1995. Hon. Bud Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this letter is to convey the California Environmental Protection Agency's (Cal/EPA's) support for H.R. 1943, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act of 1995. This bill would deem San Diego's Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to be the equivalent of secondary treatment by virtue of its chemically enhanced primary treatment combined with an exceptionally long and deep ocean outfall. This support is in recognition of the demonstrated ability of the Point Loma treatment plant to comply with California State Ocean Plan standards. During 1994 the treatment facility met every requirement of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit without fail, earning it the distinction of receiving a Gold Award from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. This award could only have been earned with a strict industrial source control program, a well-run treatment plant, and an effective ocean outfall. The California State Ocean Plan, which is tailored to provide strict standards to protect the marine environment, was developed in 1972 by the State Water Resources Control Board. It was prepared by a team of scientists and was adopted only after a series of public hearings and full disclosure and review by all interested parties. It was also approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Since the adoption of the initial plan, it has undergone periodic review and been revised in 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1990. This document (now under revision, for completion in 1997) is the basis for NPDES Permits for ocean discharges within California, and contains over 200 standards--making it the most comprehensive state-adopted plan in the Nation. There has been some concern expressed in the past about whether or not the Ocean Plan Standards are enforceable in Federal waters more than four miles offshore. However, H.R. 1943 clearly requires compliance with Ocean Plan Standards and therefore would be applicable to the Point Loma outfall despite its termination in Federal waters. There have been allegations that under HR 1943 San Diego would be allowed to discharge raw sewage or partially treated sewage. That simply is not the case. The effluent from the Point Loma treatment plant is required to meet all State Ocean Plan standards, and will continue to be permitted by California on this basis. The permit will be renewed every five years, with full public review and input. In addition, San Diego is required to continue its in-depth monitoring program to ensure compliance with all standards and [[Page H 7573]] full protection of the ocean. Reports are submitted monthly, quarterly, and annually providing all of the data that confirms compliance with permit requirements and attainment of the Ocean Standards. I understand that some groups, including the U.S. EPA, support the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 1994 but oppose HR 1943. In a July 11, 1995 letter to you, the U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Mr. Bob Perciacepe, states that the bill is ``unnecessary, eliminates public review, and is scientifically unsound.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill is necessary to allow San Diego to plan for the future without the vagaries of Federal bureaucratic changes; it includes the same public review of the permit and scientific basis as the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act. Mr. Perciacepe's letter also states that H.R. 1943 conflicts with the National Research Council's 1993 report, Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. He says that the bill ``would provide for a blanket exemption from secondary treatment, even if changed circumstances or evolving science raise reasonable questions about the continued wisdom of the waiver'' and that this conflicts with the report's caution to allow flexibility to respond to new information. My understanding is that H.R. 1943 includes precisely the flexibility that the National Research Council suggests, allowing the continuously-updated, site-specific criteria of the State Ocean Plan to apply--rather than the one-size-fits- all secondary treatment requirement mandated by the Clean Water Act over 20 years ago. In summary, we urge support for H.R. 1943 because current monitoring and data analysis demonstrates that the ocean waters offshore of the Point Loma treatment plant are fully protected. Continuing compliance with the California State Ocean Plan--including changes to the Plan reflecting evolving and increasing scientific knowledge--will assure that the all necessary protection remains in full force in the future. Sincerely, James M. Strock, Secretary. Secondary Equivalency For San Diego Wastewater Treatment Facility-- Supported By Sound Science Judge Brewster stated, in his findings in his March, 1994 Memorandum Decision and Order Rejecting the Proposed Consent Decree, that ``the scientific evidence without dispute establishes that the marine environment is not harmed by present sewage treatment, and in fact appears to be enhanced.'' The National Academy of Sciences 1993 report ``Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' stated that the Clean Water Act's uniform requirements have not allowed a process that adequately addresses regional variations in environmental systems around the country or that the law responds well to changing needs. In the case of deep ocean discharge, such as San Diego, they concluded that biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids were of little concern. In addition, the Academy scientists concluded that chemically enhanced primary treatment is an effective technology for protecting the environment coupled with deep ocean discharge. Specifically, the report states ``chemically enhanced primary treatment is an effective technology for removing suspended solids and associated contaminants.'' Scientists from all over the country have testified in various forums, including under oath in the federal district court in San Diego, that San Diego's current level of treatment fully protects the offshore environment. A May 1991 ``Consensus Statement'' by thirty-three of the scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography fully supports the concept of advanced primary treatment for discharge in deep swiftly moving marine waters such as those that exist off Point Loma. During June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced a preliminary determination to approve San Diego's waiver application stating ``San Diego has laid out a detailed wastewater plan that makes both environmental and economic sense.'' The local Sierra Club unanimously supports a waiver for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment from secondary treatment. The California Environmental Protection Agency supports secondary equivalency for the San Diego system and has stated that the city's sewage treatment system is ``fully capable of protecting the marine environment without the need for expensive secondary treatment.'' Support the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act (H.R. 1943) Under current law, coastal dischargers like San Diego are required to provide traditional secondary treatment of their municipal sewage discharges. However, the ``secondary sewage'' regulation, (part of the original Clean Water Act written in 1972) was intended for cities and municipalities which discharge into rivers and lakes, and shallow estuaries. San Diego discharges into the Pacific Ocean, 4.5 miles from shore into receiving waters 300 feet below the surface. The National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the California EPA all agree that because of its deep ocean outfall, its industrial pre-treatment process and chemically enhanced primary treatment (chemical secondary), the present sewage treatment program utilized by San Diego does not harm the ocean environment. Because of the extensive scientific evidence documenting this situation, which is unique to San Diego, the San Diego Coastal Correction Act provides permanent relief from the secondary sewage regulation. If San Diego was forced to comply with the secondary sewage regulation, which has been scientifically shown to be unnecessary, San Diego ratepayers would have to pay $3 billion dollars for additions/alterations to the sewage treatment plant. The federal regulation is not only unnecessary, it is extremely costly, even though no measurable or justifiable benefits are achieved by complying with it. An environmental impact report detailed environmental damage that would occur should the city be required to comply with the regulation. However, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act in no way relaxes or relieves the City from continued compliance with stringent state and federal clean water requirements. San Diego must still submit monthly, quarterly, and annual reports to both the EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which is the State agency that monitors San Diego's discharge permit. San Diego's Ocean Monitoring program is one of the largest in the world, with over 250,000 samples being taken and analyzed annually. The City conducts comprehensive chemical and physical tests of treated effluent, ocean sediments, and biological organisms. The City is still required to comply with these state and federal standards under the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of funding for the 511 Loan Guarantee Program. As a former city councilman, mayor, and county supervisor, I have long had an interest in the development of transportation infrastructure in San Diego County, CA. During the last two decades, San Diego has developed a truly innovative public-private partnership in the area of transportation. In 1979, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB] purchased the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway Railroad line. The San Diego Trolley Board which I had previously chaired, initiated transit service over the western portion of this line immediately surrounding San Diego. In 1984, a Texas firm which operates Short Line Railroads established the San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad which provides freight service over the line at night when the trolleys are not operating. This small railroad has provided good service and has been consistently profitable. Unfortunately, in 1976, major sections of track were destroyed on the desert line which connects the National Railroad System. It has long been a major objective of the San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] to reconnect the railroad to the national rail network in the Imperial Valley. This will have major benefits for shippers in the San Diego area, and will provide relief for the transit lines which currently carry both freight and passengers into Los Angeles. Even though the track itself is owned by the transit district, management of the San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad have informed us that they will finance the reconnection if section 511 loan guarantees are made available. I would like to commend my colleague from San Diego, Representative Filner, who has been the leader on this issue, and I look forward to the reopening of this important freight connection.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman. I appreciate my colleagues' courtesy and I thank the Chair. I would ask that we address a concern involving the maintaining of competitivization in the U.S. Postal Service and would ask for a colloquy.

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for his encouraging words.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the chairman. I further understand that while the GAO is in the process of finalizing this report, the results will show that the Postal Service is potentially foregoing millions of dollars of savings by performing remote bar code service in-house rather than continuing to contract with the private sector. As the chairman well knows, the Postmaster General has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill over the past several months urging Congress for support for the changes in the Postal Reorganization Act that will make the Postal Service more businesslike. Yet, when it comes to the remote bar code system, the reason why I raise this issue is the estimated savings of contracting the bar code system was $4.3 billion over the next 15 years. The Postal Service continues to terminate the private sector role in this program and adds tens of thousands of civil service employees at the time of dismembering the system. Mr. Chairman, I obviously share your concern with the wasteful spending of the Postal Service, particularly when the bureaucratic civil service jobs are created at the direct expense of private sector companies. It is therefore my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that based on the GAO's cost comparison, you intend to proceed with an appropriate communication to the Postmaster General urging him to consider the possibility of suspending the transition of private sector remote code service contracts.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the distinguished subcommittee chairman has requested the General Accounting Office to compare the cost to the U.S. Postal Service of contracting for remote bar code service versus having the work done in-house.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, America is a nation of immigrants; America is also a nation of laws. As the House begins consideration this week on a comprehensive immigration reform, we should be mindful of the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. With this in mind, our laws should reflect our desire to reward legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration. Current law, Mr. Speaker, sends conflicting signals. Immigrants who play by the rules, observe our laws, and go through the proper legal channels wait for years to be U.S. citizens. Conversely, if an undocumented woman crosses the border illegally, gives birth to a child on U.S. soil, that child automatically becomes a citizen. The child, and by extension its parents who are here illegally, are eligible for a menu of State and Federal benefits. When our laws punish legal behavior, but reward illegal behavior, Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the American taxpayers demand that we redress this situation.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], my colleague. I think those of us that were involved in the nuclear debate back in the 1970's would recognize that waste production was the major concern at that time, and if that nuclear could have come before America and said, ``We will not only produce nuclear wastes, we will consume waste,'' then I think there would be a whole lot of different discussion by those of us who were involved in the debate at that time. This technology not only has the capability of avoiding those pitfalls, but it also has the ability of consuming a waste problem that has been totally ignored by this body at this time, and that is the fact that there is going to be over 100 metric tons of plutonium, military-grade plutonium between Russia and the United States; that all we are talking about right now is putting it in the ground and hoping, hoping that somebody does not know it is there, and use it for operations we do not care about. I think one of the concerns we need to recognize is that this technology, it not only consumes waste, it not only produces power, but there is this national defense issue that I think we got to talk about. They will say, ``Why doesn't the private sector do this?'' I will tell my colleagues we cannot walk away from our obligation to address the plutonium issue, not only in the United States, but across the globe. We have 100 metric tons that this technology can address so that it would not be used against the people of the United States.