Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

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

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

Mr. BILBRAY. I think there is an issue there, and I would ask everybody that would love to vote for this amendment to recognize that if they want to try to kill this technology in this research, then be ready to go back to their district and say, ``I don't think the issue of our military-grade plutonium, the hundred tons that is going to exist between Russia and the United States, is an issue that we really need to worry about right now.'' This technology takes a problem and creates an answer to it, and for those of us that have been involved in environmental issues, we use a term called appropriate technology, and this is the appropriate technology for the use of an existing system, and it is probably the best example, Mr. Chairman, of military conversion. I say to my colleagues, ``Let's take that military equipment, the plutonium, and let's convert it into power so the civilian use can help our economic prosperity built on past military expenditures.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. To the people of the Pacific Islands: Greetings and congratulations on the celebration of the coming together of the diverse cultures of you who make San Diego your home. You have my deepest regards, and total support for the first Pacific Islander Festival to be held in San Diego, July 21 to 23, 1995, and the mainland maiden arrival of your historic voyaging canoe Hokulea. I commend your efforts to continue, and expand, the unique customs and cultures of the Pacific Islands, sharing them with all others. It is with great pride that I acknowledge you and your goals, and call upon everyone to join in your most festive time. The place you hold in our community is recognized, and your heritages are treasured. Accept my fondest wishes for a successful meeting of all the people. It is a deep honor to be a part of your festivities and to represent the U.S. Congress to you.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I have to stand in support of the proposal, and I just want to point out to my colleague from California there is a 100,000 Californian seniors that want that choice. I have a stack, I have stacks of comments coming from my seniors in my district saying how it is nice to be able to have options that Washington is not mandating on seniors, that seniors are allowed to be treated as dignified individuals. This program was something that has worked, is continuing to work, in our State, and to restrict it not only from the rest of the country, but to allow it to die, is not a vote in support of seniors and their dignity, but actually a support to replace the dignity of seniors' choices with big centralized Federal control systems, and I think the problem is some of our colleagues are so wedded to command and control, big, centralized government that they are willing to sacrifice our seniors' ability to have the dignity of having their choice to choose something that serves them, and I think that we need to start treating our seniors with the dignity they earned over the years.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, this facility is in my district. It also happens to be the Navy base where I was born. But let me just say that my colleague talks about this whole process. It is the whole process of the BRACC that says the most cost-effective way of defending our Nation was to take a certain strategy. It did not fit in with Long Beach. I understand that, but I do have to call attention to my colleague from California that the co-called environmentalists that he referred to happened to be the same people who were litigating right now to stop us from treating sewage from a foreign country that is polluting this area, too. So I say to my colleagues, ``Please don't refer to these people as environmentalists. They think of themselves as that. This whole issue is one of those ugly little games that gets played, and I hope we don't allow certain pressure groups to get involved in that. I'm asking you to take a look at the fact that BRACC process came down, my district was hurt by the loss of the naval training facility, but it also, in that work, was saying that the consolidation of these facilities in one area will save the United States' people money, and I think that is a critical part about this when we talk about the dredging, the improvements and everything else that has gone on in San Diego. It will continue to do it regardless of this.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about removing a process that may be well intentioned, but let me tell you as somebody who had to work at the local level at trying to make the process work and seeing the difficulties that happened in the last year, it was a good intention that is just not penciled out. I think we need to remind all of us here that these facilities, these bases, were not just purchased by a willing seller. The great majority of the military installations in this country were taken under war powers acts and under emergency powers. So the concept of how they were taken and where they belong in the long run is something we can talk about at length. But let me tell you, as somebody who has tried to work with the homeless issue, that this act has not worked to the level that it could work if we were tapping into the greatest resource we have of providing homeless resources in our country, and that is the local government and local cooperation. This process, Mr. Chairman, is counterproductive to its stated intent. I would like to point out that I will be introducing as one item, possibly in Corrections Day, as something that can really help the homeless programs. I have St. Vincent de Paul Housing Center in San Diego County paying over $30,000 a year in interest payments that are really inappropriate. I would hope my colleague would work with me on this. This act does not do what we want to do with the homeless programs. I would like to point out also the way this thing is being interpreted right now, the California Coastal Commission is being preempted by HUD Federal mandate. I do not think anybody means to repreempt the California Coastal Act with this act. These are the kind of details we could avoid if we would go into a cooperative mode with the local authorities, and give them the right to implement these programs appropriately. I would say to my chairman, HUD is not the best agency to make the determination of how best to provide homeless services in San Diego County or in New York or in Florida or in Washington. I think that local communities have proven over the last half a decade that when they are allowed to do the right thing, they not only do the right thing, but they do the best thing.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the 49th District of California. I also happen to have the privilege of living in the southwestern corner of the United States, where the Pacific Ocean meets the Mexican border. Sad to say, I also happen to have to represent an area that is severely impacted by intrusion and incursions across the Mexican border, not only of illegal immigration, but those individuals that cross the border to perpetuate crime and theft. Mr. Speaker, the problem is not just those of unorganized crime or organized crime, but the problem is actually of those who are invested with government authority in Mexico, participating in a program of theft and violence against the people of the United States and those in San Diego County. This photo here is a good example of the problem. This is a federal Mexican police officer driving a United States stolen car, without even having the wherewithal to bother to take off the California license plate that was on the vehicle. This vehicle is stolen, and identified by the Federal agents as stolen, and still is being used on official business for Mexico's Government. Now, this week we had a situation that I think has to be brought to attention here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, this week two Mexican Federal agents crossed over into United States territory at the port of entry and actually stopped members of the United States, citizens of the United States, with AK-47 weapons in their possession and took those individuals, tried to forcibly take those individuals back into Mexico. Our United States agents confronted them with their weapons drawn, and for a moment there was actually a standoff between Mexican Federal agents on United States soil and American Federal agents on United States soil, point-blank range, ready to have a shoot-out. Thank the powers above that we did not have a tragedy here. But we did have a situation that really calls for attention, and that is the fact that U.S. citizens were ready to be forced off of U.S. territory by agents of a foreign government, with weapons, I want to point out, that are illegal, not only to be imported into this country but to be possessed in this country, and that is a fully automatic AK-47. Now, the Mexican Attorney General has said these people are going to be handled, and our Government has turned them back over to Federal agents to be taken to Mexico City. I certainly want everyone in this capital and in Mexico City to recognize this Member will be watching this quite closely, along with my constituents. Mr. Speaker, not only did that happen, but in the City of Coronado an individual was arrested who has been identified as being a state police officer in the act of stealing a vehicle from my district to export it to Mexico. Now, let us be frank. A lot of us support free trade, but this is not the type of free trade I or my constituents support. If we are going to export cars, we would like it to be paid for first. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that an interesting side note to this incidence at the border is the car that was being driven by the Mexican officials who tried to take the American citizens across the border was not only found to have alcohol and drugs in it, but actually happened to be a stolen American car being driven in this act. Now, there was other instances that have occurred, again this week, where there were two individuals who identified themselves as being dealers for officials on the Mexican side who were Government officials, and they were being paid and reimbursed for that theft. Mr. Speaker, this is another incident of the situation that our border is out of control. I am not speaking against the people of Mexico or their Government, as much as the fact that there are problems within their Government that we must insist be corrected. There have been successes. I would like to announce that the State of Baja California Sur has cooperated with the United States, identified 300 cars for investigation, and actually have identified that 75 of those 300 cars are in fact stolen American cars. They have cooperated with U.S. officials, and those cars are now going to be returned to their rightful owners. So there are successes, but the problem is that we have recognized a situation here to where we not only have crime crossing the border, but we have crime and violence crossing the border under the guise of government authority. When my police officers in Coronado stop a car burglar and stop them in the act, I think it is quite inappropriate for my police officers to be greeted with a Mexican badge that says, you have to release me because I am a Mexican official. Well, thank God our police officers do not play by that game. I will ask all my colleagues to pay attention to this issue, Mr. Speaker, and that this Nation pay attention. And I hope that we send a message to the White House and to Mexico City that these things have to stop now.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the budget resolution. Now, I want to be clear in that I do not support every single cut that is presented in the resolution. But that is not the issue before us today. The issue before us is to outline a blueprint from which each authorizing and appropriations committee will be able to work from. It sets guidelines in which we will be able to work from in our own committees where programs can be thoughtfully analyzed and deliberated. I supported a balanced budget amendment and, therefore, support this proposal which would balance the budget by the year 2002. I find it hypocritical that some of those that say they support the balanced budget amendment now oppose any specific plan to do so. The naysayers complain that the time is not now to save America. But if not now, when? When our debt reaches $5 trillion or $6 trillion? The point is that it is never an easy task to make tough choices. We have well past the time to bite the bullet and pass this blueprint that will put us back onto the road of fiscal accountability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in each section, the facility discharge is subject to the ocean monitoring program acceptable to Federal and State regulators, and it must be in compliance with the ocean plan for the State of California. If my colleague from California feels that California's water quality board is somehow not enforcing, we have one of the most efficient water quality controls here. In fact, they pointed out in the San Diego instance that--the water quality control board has pointed out that we do fulfill their discharge requirements and that EPA would have the lead role in assessing these permits. This happens at both locations. I think the problem is we are talking about chemically enhanced primary, does it fulfill the intention of Congress of cleaning up the pollution? The BOD, which is what it does not address, does not apply, is not needed in a saltwater deep outfall. It does in an estuary like the shallow waters of San Francisco and in the lakes and rivers. But here what we get down to is, is Congress worried about the environment or is it a command and control thing; we made a decision that there was a certain way you treated sewage and if somebody has a different way that does the job cheaper, we do not care. We will not allow them to do it because we figure there is only one way to get the job done. All of the regulatory agencies, the EPA, let me point out, the EPA not only is impressed with San Diego's jump on monitoring. The Federal Government, EPA has hired the city of San Diego's monitoring system to monitor the entire northern Baja.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think the problem is understanding the technical issues here. The fact that what was interpreted as being chlorination, San Diego is not using the chlorination. Chemically enhanced primary treatment was actually brought to San Diego by members of the Sierra Club as a much more cost effective and environmentally safe way of getting to secondary treatment. It is where you use chemicals to remove the solids to fulfill the standard. What it does is say look, back in the seventies we thought there was only one way to able to clean up the water. Now scientists have come up with new technologies. If we look at a 1970 car and a 1990 car, we will agree there is a difference. The other issue, the chemical, what is called chemical enhanced primary, the fact is primary really is talking about a secondary treatment that does not use injected air and bubbling sewage around, biological activity. In a salt water environment scientists say there is no problem with this, it does the job. The only difference is the BOD, the biochemical oxygen demand, which in a deep salt water environment does not create any problem according to the scientists. I would like to point out, too, as my colleague has, we are talking about this can only be done if the facility's discharges are consistent with the ocean plan for the State of California, one of the most strict water quality programs in the entire Nation, if not the most. So we are saying how you do it we do not mind, as long as the finished product does not hurt the environment and gets the job done. I appreciate my colleagues who are going through a transition here. We are getting away from command and control, Washington knows the answer to everything. What we are trying to get down to is saying, local people, if you can find a better answer to get the job done that we want done, you not only have a right to do that, you have a responsibility, and we will not stand in the way of you doing that. I would like to point out that the monitoring continues. If there is a pollution problem, if the EPA sees there is a hassle, if the monitoring problem shows there is an environmental problem, this waiver immediately ceases and we go back to the same process. That should assure everyone who cares about the environment.

Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is that San Jose opens into an open trench into 20 feet of water in an estuary; it does not place it 350 feet deep and 4\1/2\ miles out in an area where scientists say not only does it not hurt the environment, it helps it. And so you do have a waiver to be able to do that rather than being required to have to use other outfall systems but it is because you were able to show that. But the trouble here with this process is that all reasonable scientific data shows that there is no reason to have to spend the 26 pounds of reports, the $1\1/2\ million, and when you get into it, EPA will be the trigger to decide if that process needs to go. What EPA told me as a public health director when I say this is a waste of money, the Government did not mean to do this, they said Congress makes us do it. They do not give us the latitude to be able to make a judgment call based on reasonable environmental regulations they have mandated to us. So I am taking the mandate away from them.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. And you have monitoring that basically says that you have to prove, bring monitoring that you do not, that you are not degrading the environment. That is what we are talking about; we are talking about an outcome basis. Does it hurt the environment? Not the regulations. Is the environment hurt here.

Mr. BILBRAY. You have to read the bill and all the conditions of being able to meet the triggers of the EPA.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, with all the monitoring that would have to be done under existing law, the same review process and public testimony the same way.

Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is here it is outcome-based. In fact the water quality is not violated as long as scientists at EPA say there is not damage. My concern to you is if the monitoring is done, if the environment is protected, if EPA and all of the scientists say it is fine, why, then why is the process with a million and a half dollars and 26 pounds of paper so important to you to make sure those reports have been filed?

Mr. BILBRAY. Four miles, 300 feet.

Mr. BILBRAY. Totally different. under 10,000, no scientific basis for that. All these things are thrown into the bill.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would have to say, as someone who has spent 18 years fighting to clean up the pollution in San Diego County, it concerns me when my colleague from California speaks of the pollution problems in San Diego, when in fact we can recognize that one of the major problems we have had is that the regulation has taken precedence over the science and the need to protect the public health. This bill as presented by the chairman reflects the scientific data that shows that not only does having chemically enhanced primary not hurt the environment, but it also shows that the studies that have been done by many, many scientific groups, in fact every major scientific study in the San Diego region has shown that if we go to secondary, as my colleague from California would suggest, that the secondary mandate would create more environmental damage than not going to secondary. Institute, a Dr. Revell, came to me and personally asked me to intervene. My colleagues may not think that I have any credentials in the environmental field, but I would point out that Dr. Revell is one of the most noted oceanographers that has ever lived in this century. He just passed away. He was saying strongly that the secondary mandate on the city of San Diego was going to be a travesty, a travesty to the people of San Diego but, more important, a damage to the environment of our oceans and our land. My colleague from San Jose has pointed out that there may be a problem giving waivers. I think we all agree that there are appropriate procedures, but those procedures should follow science. The city of San Jose has gone to extensive treatment, Mr. Chairman, but when the science said that you could dispose of that in the estuary of southern San Francisco Bay, my colleague's city of San Jose was given a waiver to be able to do that, and will continue to do it because the science says that it is okay. Our concern with this is the fact that the process should follow the path toward good environment. What we have today now is a process that diverts the attention of those of us in San Diego and the EPA away from real environmental problems and puts it toward a product that is 26 pounds of reports, 1.5 million dollars' worth of expenses. It is something that I think that we really have to test those of us here: Do we care about the environment of America or do we care about the regulations of Congress? When the science and the scientists who have worked strongly on this stand up and say, ``Don't require secondary sewage in San Diego,'' we really are put to the test. Are we more wedded to our regulation than we are to our environment? Now if you do not believe me, though I have fought hard at trying to clean up Mexican sewage and trying to get the sewage to stay in pipes, while the EPA has ignored that, they have concentrated on this process. I would ask my colleague to consider his own colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], who has worked with me on this and lives in the community and has talked to the scientists, and Mr. Filner can tell you quite clearly that this is not an issue of the regulations with the environment, this is one of those situations where the well- intentioned but misguided mandate of the 1970's has been interpreted to mean we are going to damage the environment of San Diego, and I would strongly urge that the environment takes precedence here. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague from San Diego, Mr. Filner, to respond to the fact that is it not true that the major marine biologists, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, one of the most noted institutes in the entire country on the ocean impacts, supports our actions on this item?

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

Mr. BILBRAY. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, my experience with Mr. Filner was as the director of the public health department for San Diego, and as he knows, this is not something I am not involved with. I happened to be personally involved with the water quality there. I surf, my 9- and 8-year-old children surf. We have water contact; we care about the environment.