Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Why would I ask?

Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is that it is costing $1.5 million. The fact is, it is only a 4- to 5-year waiver, and the fact that under our bill all monitoring, the EPA will monitor it, the Environmental Protection Agency of California will monitor it. We have developed a system that scientists say will be the most cost-effective way of approaching this. All of the monitoring, all of the public health protections are there. As long as the environment continues not to be injured, we will continue to move forward. And you have to understand, too, one thing you do not understand that Mr. Filner and I do understand, we have had at the time of this process, this bureaucratic process has been going on, we have had our beaches closed and polluted from other sources that the EPA has ignored.

Mr. BILBRAY. There is no slippery slope. What it says is those that have proven scientifically there is no reasonable reason to think there is environmental damage that is going to occur should not have to go through a process of having to go through EPA and the Federal bureaucracy. I think you would agree if we in the 1970's were told by scientists there is no foreseeable damage or foreseeable problem with water quality, this law would never have been passed. In San Diego the scientists have said that, and I think you need to reflect it.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as somebody who was operating a health department, the elected officials locally that have to surf in those waters, the ones who are elected and go face to face with the citizens every day, they are the ones who know what really is happening in the ocean and they are the ones who are the most concerned and the most appropriate to be able to enforce this.

Mr. BILBRAY. The scientific data, what is called chemically enhanced primary, is equivalent to secondary treatment. I would like to make several points about my legislation to recognize San Diego's primary advanced treatment as the equivalent of secondary sewage treatment. Comprehensive ocean monitoring studies conducted by the city of San Diego demonstrates that the present combination of industrial waste source controls, chemically enhanced primary treatment facilities and ocean discharge facilities are highly effective at protecting the ocean environment. Under the legislation I have introduced, the city will still be required to demonstrate that it meets the State and Federal clean water standards through the continued monitoring and testing procedures witnessed today. As many of my California colleagues know, Mayor Golding has submitted the city's application for a waive from the secondary sewage requirement of the Clean Water Act. The city had worked for years to get straightforward, unconditional legislation to acknowledge the scientific basis for the adequacy of our existing level of treatment. During the closing days of the 103d Congress, a compromise was ultimately accepted in the form of a free standing bill which limits the capacity of the point Loma plant and requires significant water reclamation capacity. Failure to obtain this legislation would have meant a costly time- consuming trial on the requirement of the secondary treatment. I would like to point out to you today what the difference between the waiver application, and my legislation, which provides permanent relief from the mandate. Point Loma must operate under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination [NPDES] permit, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency every 5 years. Regardless of whether the city is operating under a waiver, or an exemption as I have proposed, Point Loma must still renew its permit. Likewise, the permit can only be reissued after a public review and hearing process is completed. Eithr way, if the city is not in compliance with State or Federal standards, it would not receive its operating permit from the EPA. The bottom line: It is more cost effective to provide the city with permanent relief from the secondary sewage requirement. The waiver application that Mayor Golding submitted to the EPA was 15 volumes long and cost $1 million dollars to assemble. This is money which could be spent improving the existing system, or expanding it to meet future needs. Finally, I'd like to point out that the State of California, which was a plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit against San Diego for 6 years switched sides, and became a defendant in the case, supporting the city's contention that the sewage treatment standard is needlessly stringent for San Diego. California switched sides after the city began operating the extended sewage disposal pipe, an action designed to bring the city into compliance with the State's ocean plan. The city has currently been in compliance with the State standards for 17 months. My legislation in no way exempts the city from the requirements and standards of the clean Water Act. Continued monitoring and testing is explicitly provided for in order to ensure that the ocean environment is protected. And if the State of California can be convinced that the city was acting in good faith to protect the ocean, the EPA must surely be able to recognize that the city's resources can be spent on more environmentally friendly pursuits that $1 million dollar waiver applications. My legislation will accomplish the parallel goals of protecting our ocean environment and the taxpayer's wallet. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA, March 8, 1995. Hon. Susan Golding, Mayor, City of San Diego, San Diego, CA. Dear Mayor Golding: The purpose of this letter is to convey the California Environmental Protection Agency's support for your efforts to obtain a legislative exemption from the federal secondary treatment requirements for San Diego's Pt. Loma wastewater treatment plant. This support is in recognition of the demonstrated ability of the Pt. Loma plant to comply with state Ocean Plan standards. The recently extended ocean outfall has been shown to be performing very well. This, in conjunction with the successful implementation of chemically enhanced treatment at Pt. Loma has given the city of San Diego a sewage treatment and disposal system fully capable of protecting the marine environment without the need for expensive secondary treatment. The consensus statements by the scientists of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography fully support the concept of advance primary marine waters such as those that exist off Pt. Loma. Additionally, scientists of the National Academy of Science, after three years of study, have published conclusions that support San Diego's efforts to amend the Clean Water Act. The Academy's April 1993 study ``Waste Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' includes many findings applicable to San Diego's situation. The Academy concluded that the secondary treatment requirement can lead to overcontrol and overprotection along open ocean coasts. Further, the Academy stressed that the Clean Water Act does not allow regulators to adequately address regional variations in environmental systems. In the case of a deep ocean discharge, such as San Diego, they concluded that biochemical oxygen demand, pathogens, nitrogen and other nutrients were of little concern. In summary, the Academy scientists concluded that chemically enhanced primary treatment is an effective technology for removing suspended solids and associated contaminants. The State of California concurs with the Scripps scientists as well as the National Academy of Science. Our review of your system and the extensive Ocean Monitoring Program reports further support the fact that San Diego will continue to meet all State Ocean Plan Standards for your discharge. Based on this scientific evidence, the State of California fully supports the City's request for legislation to grant an exemption from secondary treatment. Sincerely, James M. Strock.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would like to echo the concerns about the disaster in Louisiana. As my wife, who is from New Orleans, would point out, it is an always ongoing threat for everyone who lives in different parts of the country, one that the people in Louisiana face, and the threat that you do have those rains. She always sort of scoffs at Californians, and what we call rain she calls a drizzle, and sadly those conditions have turned more severe than normal in Louisiana. I would like to say for those of us in California who understand tragedy from nature, we appreciate that it comes in different forms, and we are sorry you have to confront a different form at this time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall 309, which was the final passage of H.R. 1361, the fiscal year 1996 Coast Guard ``aye.''

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. In San Diego, this has been a real tough battle for almost two decades now where San Diego County has a welfare system larger than 32 States of the Union. It is 2.6 million with a very large welfare problem. And every time we try to do something, the Federal Government was always in the way of the people of San Diego trying to reform and restructure this. And in fact, I point out that in 1978, the people in San Diego were called ruthless and heartless and cruel because they came up with a radical idea, they said, that was cruel called ``workfare,'' in 1978. And just the last few years, to show you how frustrating it is working with the Federal Government, when you are trying to make some sanity out of this situation, that when we found there was welfare fraud, we realized we wanted to put a picture ID on a welfare card. And Federal agents were saying, we do not think you can do that because we think it may violate the privacy of the welfare recipient. I have to say that any person who truly is in need, any person who really wants to participate in a good program would obviously not be opposed to having their picture on the welfare card. In fact, I think any of us who has any kind of identification, driver's license, do we feel our privacy has been violated because we have a picture? I think that gives you an example of how we have got to break up the concept that Washington is the only well of knowledge and compassion, that the local communities do have the ability to address these problems, to straighten out these problems, if we must give them the right to do the right thing. That is really what my people in San Diego keep crying for us to do here in Washington.

Mr. BILBRAY. I was in a community called Navajo where the lady who runs the school lunch program came forward and said, I did not know about you Republicans. I was not sure. But thank you for giving us the program so we do not always have to have Washington tell us how to do it. We can serve kids more lunches and be able to serve the kids better because you are getting the Federal Government off our backs so we can do it. She said it quite clearly. She said, what do you people in Washington or the people in Washington think, that Washington cares more about our children than we care about our own children? I think that was probably the best message we could receive.

Mr. BILBRAY. I had it pointed out to me that the more money that we have spent on the federal Department of Education, the more the test scores of our students in this country have dropped. I do not believe that you can blame it on the Department of Education, but I think that what it tells us is just throwing money at a Federal agency will not help to educate our children. It is the teachers and the parents of America that will educate the children. And what we need to do in the Federal Government is get out of the way and let them do what they do best, take care of the children. If any of us had a vehicle where we spent more money on the vehicle and the vehicle ran worse every time we added money, we would kind of think twice about the idea of how much money we are spending here and maybe we should try a different vehicle. I think the best vehicle is allow parents to do what parents do best, allow teachers to do what teachers do best and get off their backs and let them get the job done.

Mr. BILBRAY. As somebody who was raised in a very multicultural neighborhood, my home town was very, very multicultural. The fact is that we have got to remember that language is one of the bonding elements that hold us together. Common culture, common language, common economics. We can share other cultures. My community, we celebrate September 16 or Cinco de Mayo just as much as anybody else would. It is one of the joys. The problem we get into is when people want to destroy that common ground where all Americans can meet, and that common ground, one thing that is very critical is language. We should learn from what is happening in the Continent of Africa and what has happened in Yugoslavia, where people have drawn lines and maintained separate lines just to make sure they do not communicate. Language is absolutely essential, not just for the culture, but for the individual. In my community and my district, a lot of Mexican nationals send their children up into the United States to be educated, and their first priority is for their children to learn English, because even in Mexico, language, the English language, is essential if you want the economic and social prosperity for your children. Those of us that love our children should do no less for our future generations than to make sure that everyone, everyone in the United States has the right to proficiency in the English language. That has not necessarily happened. In certain segments where English is not a major part of the educational system, and where it has not been well implanted, the dropout rate is over 50 percent. We are denying these individuals the potential for free access, the right and freedom of the pursuit of happiness. I think we really need to raise this issue of saying we want to do this as a compassionate step so we have equal opportunity, and we cannot have equal opportunity in any society unless there is a common language. I think it is quite clear. The people of California, though, I want to point out, have passed a citizens initiative that identifies English as the official language, and let me point out that those of Latino extraction actually were major supporters in the voting ranks for that, because they, more than anyone else, understand that you have to have that common bond. That English language is our common language.

Mr. BILBRAY. I heard that from a tax consultant in my own living room, actually in the kitchen.

Mr. BILBRAY. You have your kitchen Cabinet, I have mine. But the fact is, as this tax consultant pointed out, is that if Members of Congress could see what the average American citizen has to go through every April 15, or to get ready for April 15, if the average Member of Congress saw what happens to the citizens, this cruel and unusual punishment that we call the IRS taxing system, the income tax process, that there is no way morally you could stand up and defend the existing taxation structure. In fact, this consultant said flat out that she would prefer to be put out of business and go to a consumption tax or a flat tax, I think she favors a consumption tax, because the argument is everybody should understand that we all pay taxes. There are certain people on public assistance who we say ``do not pay any taxes,'' but we all do, directly or indirectly. One thing about a consumption tax, it makes everybody on U.S. territory who buys anything pay part of that. I will tell you, the greatest speech I probably ever heard about taxation happened that day. She said, ``Put me out of business. I do not want to be part of this cruel punishment of the American citizens that we call the income tax system.'' Let me point out, that tax consultant was my wife, and all I said to her is ``Karen, we need you to testify before Congress, because I think it says a lot when a business person says `The system is so rotten that you should put me out of business.''' I think if you talk to most people who work in the tax business, they are frustrated with the fact that the system is neither equal nor fair, it is cruel, and it does not do the job properly, and it does not do it in a way that I think we can be proud of as American citizens.

Mr. BILBRAY. I heard a lot of frustration with what we call the Federal bureaucracy. I think one of the things I tried to do is to make sure I clarify that they should not blame the agents. The fact is the blame for the absurdity of the Federal Government and the abuse of the Federal Government rest with Congress, and it is our responsibility, it is the President's responsibility, it is the Senate's, but we are the ones who bear the responsibility. The people who are out there working for the Federal Government are taking a very hard hit from a lot of different directions, when in fact it is our obligation to straighten this out. I think if there is anything else, that we really planted the seed out there, that there is hope that the Federal Government will soon come back to the position of being an ally and an aid all the time, so Congress makes things change. That is a real goal that we have as freshmen, of bringing that dose of reality in from the streets of America and implanting it here in the Chambers of the House of Representatives, so that when the laws leave here, when the regulations are made, they are made always remembering we are here as servants of the public. We exist for the public, the public does not exist for the Federal Government. That is really our jobs, especially as freshmen, this new breeze that has blown through this facility, that we have to remind our senior Members on both sides of the aisle that we serve at the pleasure of the public, and the public is why we exist, and why we need to continue to listen to their concerns, and not just try to shut them off.

Mr. BILBRAY. What we really have to look at, too, though, is that it is just not about protection, because many times, if not most of the time, when a regulation is overkill and inappropriate, it is not only hurting the individual and taking away precious rights, but it is also not protecting the wetlands it was meant to protect. The people in my neighborhood would love the Federal Government to do something to protect the estuarine preserves in the Tijuana Valley, but when it goes beyond finding blame and you have to find answers, the agencies just tend not to be so inspired. I think we have to get back, it is our responsibility to help redirect this, to make sure that our regulations not only have compassion, but are smart and get the job done, because my district wants to see the environment protected, but every time we waste our resources on protecting something that should not have been done or a regulation that is being implemented inappropriately, that is that much resources that could have gone to the wildlife and to preservation that is not going to go there.

Mr. BILBRAY. My district has over 10 naval military facilities there, in fact, one of them North Islands where I was born. That just shows you, you may think Californians move around a lot, but I am still living in my district. The fact is the military is learning, in San Diego, in California, across this country, a new reality. They are changing, adapting, becoming progressive, looking at ways of doing more with less. I think it sets an example for those of us in Congress and the way we look at our laws. The fact is there is a new progressive change that has taken over here. A lot of people call it conservative, but the fact is if you look at this by definition, you have citizens who are saying, ``We want you to do better. We want you to be brave enough to try new things.'' The new majority, and especially led by those of us that are freshmen, are the progressives who are willing to say the old was fine for them, but not for the future. We not only have a right to change things for the better, we have a responsibility to do that. I would like to thank you two gentlemen for participating in part of the revolution that is moving this progressive agenda along.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. I represent the 49th District of California. It is a beautiful district that stretches from my home town in Pearl Beach on the Mexican border up north to the beautiful wooded hills of La Jolla, from the communities of Ocean Beach and Pacific Beach on the blue Pacific to the foot hills of the Sierra Nevadas, what we call the San Diego foot hills. And I was greeted by citizens at every community that we were visiting, very, very encouraged with the factors that my colleagues have said, that there was some credibility given back to Congress, something that had been lacking for so long; the fact that promises were made, promises kept, something that was rare and unseen for a long time. And one of the encouraging things was the fact that we have actually heard people say that there may be concerns about our legislative agenda, about specifics, but at least they feel that Congress cares and that Congress is listening. And I think that one of the things that shocked the people I spoke to was that rather than what has happened for the last 100 years in this country, where freshmen were brought in and stuck in corners and not allowed to speak, that the new voices of the people's concerns were muted, this time for the first time in the history that anybody remembers, the freshmen, the new wave of fresh faces was not only not stopped, they were absorbed and they were actually embraced. Many of us in the freshman class have been encouraged to participate on this floor the first day, allowed to serve on committees and actually had chairmanships, which really kind of astonished people, that the voices of the American people are being heard and are being incorporated and that we do not fear the change for the good. Frankly, I have got to point out that one of our frustrations was that, as I came in to San Diego and enjoyed the beautiful blue waters of the Pacific, we also are reminded what a failure our Federal Government has been at times, especially with issues of environmental quality which are very, very important to those of us in San Diego and California for good reason. We are blessed by the Lord of having one of the most beautiful environments in the world. But at the same time that I had to state how much we enjoy our environment, I have got to point out that we were greeted this week to over 30 million gallons of untreated raw sewage from a foreign country, Mexico, that our State Department and our EPA department found reasons to ignore and not to stop, that you or I would be fined very quickly by our own Government and by our own Federal agencies. But they have turned their head on a major environmental disaster that is occurring again and again and again for those of us that live along the border. All I would say is that next week, when we talk about the Clean Water Act, that we start recognizing that the Clean Water Act, for those of us in San Diego County, is a misnomer. We look at the Federal bureaucracy and the Federal agencies that have administered it, too quick to fine American citizens, too quick to find fault with other people, and too seldom are willing to tackle the real tough problems like 30 million gallons of raw sewage pouring from a foreign country, polluting wildlife preserves, killing wildlife in an area of endangered species that is quite critical and closing almost 10 miles of California beach front. So I hope that those of us, as we next week start addressing the Clean Water Act, will be brave enough to have the guts to rise up and say, it is a good start, but we darn well have to improve this act to make sure it protects the environment and that the agencies that are working on this must be held responsible for pollution problems such as we face in San Diego County.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I say to the gentleman, ``But their premiums can be raised, and you tell a senior that it's no problem. You just pay more, and you won't know what that is in the future. We try to lay a defined course for these people. They have enough insecurity. They don't need us playing games back and forth, and you, more than anybody else, knows that you try to send messages that we pre-warn citizens of a changing situation as much as humanly possible.''

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me say, as somebody who has had to work with this population from a county service point of view, the inconsistency of not letting them know as soon as humanly possible what their options are and if this program will be available, and, as somebody who administered Federal programs, as my colleague knows, his side of the aisle again and again--

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say as somebody who is new on the block, but has been involved in many programs that have been mandated, allowed, and pursued by the Federal Government, one of the greatest frustrations a constituency in America has is when Washington starts sending mixed signals and then waits for the last minute to give a go-ahead. The inconsistency of the political process in Congress is always frustrating for the constituents out in real world America. They watch us in the House and they watch the Senate with their faster than light process of coming to a conclusion to let America know what the rules are that they are going to be able to live by. Well, I strongly support this proposal, because I think we need to send a clear message to our seniors, not only in California where we have over 100,000 seniors that have made this this opportunity is needed. Mr. Speaker, I know there are those who fear the MediGap concept. I know there are those who want to defend to their dying day the fee for service, even if it means denying an alternative to fee for service to our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues, not as just a Member of Congress, but as somebody who has not so long ago been a consumer of the products that come out of Congress, let us send that clear message as quick as possible, let us make sure the consumer knows what the rules are, and let Congress get its job done in time so the seniors know the rules that they are going to be expected to play by.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, that vote cost his constituents $539 million.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago as a member of the public I watched these proceedings, and I watched my colleague from Maryland support the largest tax increase in the United States.