Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. There has been a major problem in trying to clear and grub around residential areas. Now, the incidence of wind, homes were lost. That may be debatable. But the fact is there has been obstructionism to the protection of homes through the firebreaks, and the coastal sage shrub, because it has been identified as an endangered species habitat, is a major problem.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the fact is, as the gentleman said, except for participating in that process, they can participate in the rest of the process. The gentleman and I know this is the core of being able to be proactive rather than reactive. I do not care if you are a representative of the industry or a representative of an environmental group, to be involved in the initial process is absolutely essential for not only your agenda, be it one way or the other, but for the process itself and the finished product.

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

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California pointed out the inspection and maintenance of the vehicles as being an issue. But I think if you look at page 29, section 3, you will see right in there is a vehicle to be able to carry this kind of reasonable application. In California we got into this issue and a major conflict between the State of California and the 30 million people thereof and the U.S. Government over what is the best way to go. What we were able to do is not abandon the cost-effective aspect, but prove that we had a better, more cost-effective, more socially acceptable way to be able to address it. We run into these conflicts all the time, to where you have unique situations in certain areas, and that part of reality is not allowed to be included; where you will have the Federal Government requiring that we talk about reducing pollution by maybe 3 percent by requiring ride sharing, and then at the same time the same Federal Government is allowing foreign commuters to come in that constitute 14 percent of the pollution. But that is ignored. Through this process we will be able to have a give-and-take to develop these rules, rather than what we had in California, which was a major conflict.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. We are talking public health, and now the gentleman is talking the fact that it is the political answer that he wants to make sure is still on the table. That is fine, but let me just say we for 20 years--the gentleman has worked on this; I understand that. I administered it. I say to the gentleman, ``You got to understand for 20 years we were pushing people towards the use of diesel. We thought that that was a great health standard. The fact is diesel has a toxicity above benzene.'' But what we are saying is, ``Let's go back and check. Let's look at these things from reality.'' Mr. Chairman, I know when they passed these laws they meant them to be health based, but, God forbid, let us not make the health based strategy somehow subservient to some kind of political whim. What we are saying is that environmental protection is a science, not a religion and not politics, and what we are trying to talk about is, ``Let's put science ahead of politics when it comes to environmental protection.''

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman realize what he just said?

Mr. BILBRAY. I do not know why everybody is so scared of just bringing some reasonable application to law. I say to my colleagues, you're not destroying the law by making sure that it's applied reasonably. You're reinforcing it. You're making sure that the intention is finally executed. The frustration out there is the fact that the reasonable application of the law has been lost, and this brings back a dose of reality, a little reality in the application of these regulations which will fulfill the law, not destroy it.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think I want to point out the gentleman from California is aware of the fact that we are not talking about static standards here. The fact is there are conflicts that have not been addressed when we go to decommission a fuel tank. But the public health exposure of the air pollution created by that regulation is never fully considered under the existing system. In areas where you may have a saltwater aquifer, implementing the Federal law may actually expose the public to more than not doing anything.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the substitute motion. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really well intentioned in thinking that environmental and regulatory mandates from the Federal Government somehow always protect the public, always defend the little guy. I am here, though, representing a district which has been severely impacted by Federal regulations. The public health of my citizens has been severely impacted by government and Federal regulations. Mr. Chairman, I happened to have the privilege of going back to my district and being able to enjoy the beautiful southern California climate. I was able to take my 8- and 9-year-olds to the beach, and this is what we were greeted with, Mr. Chairman. ``Contaminated'' signs that have been there for made out of weather-resistant plastic because the contaminated beaches of southern California have been allowed to perpetuate for a long time. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. Brown] continually points out how great the successes have been on Lake Erie. I appreciate that his children can swim in their water. My children cannot. My children cannot or should not be swimming in our water, not because of some business or because the government has not done its job under the existing rules, but because under the existing rules our government regulations have done a job on the environment. I point out the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there have actually been environmental rules interpreted by bureaucracies to state that because the area has been polluted for so long that there is a possibility that a sewage-based ecology has been created and thus is protected under environmental regulations. And that may stand in the way of diverting sewage away from this area and into a sewage treatment system as we all know it should be. At the same time, this same problem has been going on, the same area has a mandate coming down from EPA to treat our sewage in a manner that both Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the Academy of Sciences say are inappropriate and actually damaging to the environment. But these regulations are taking precedence over the environment, Mr. Chairman. What the substitute will say is that those of us who are the victims of inappropriate government regulation will not be able to go to court, will not be able to use the justice system to be able to straighten out the insensitivity of the bureaucracy. I stand here as somebody who has worked almost two decades trying to take care of the pollution problems in my neighborhoods and in my district, and at the same time trying to keep the EPA from requiring us to spend over $3 billion to $6 billion on so-called improvements that will not benefit the environment or the public health. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment because it will not allow the citizens of my district to stand up and demand that they get preferable and fair treatment from the Federal Government and that government regulations will not continue to constitute one of the greatest public health risks southern California has seen, not the lack of environmental regulations but the inappropriate application thereof. That is why I stand in opposition to this substitute motion.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis Act of 1995. We have reached a point in our regulatory infrastructure where we have come to value to process over the product. Our goal should be to provide the best possible service to all Americans in terms of our public health and safety regulations. With this bill, we move a long way towards being able to deliver on this goal. The fundamental purpose of H.R. 1022 is to present the public, and Federal decisionmakers, with the most objective and unbiased scientific information available, concerning the nature and magnitude of various health, safety and environmental risks. sound regulatory decisionmaking, and improved public awareness. H.R. 1022 will also require analysis of costs and benefits for major- rulemaking on human health, safety and the environment. Major rules are defined as regulations that are likely to result in an annual increase of $25 million or more in costs to State, local and tribal governments, or the regulated community. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because in an era where we are necessarily focused on downsizing government and reducing federal outlays, it is essential that our available resources are allocated carefully and efficiently. We can no longer afford, if indeed we ever could, to simply throw money at a perceived problem. The examples of false alarms and wasted tax dollars are many, and we cannot maintain sound public health standards by setting policy based on the ``crisis du jour.'' In San Diego we have 2 examples of regulations that are costly, and unnecessary and prohibitively burdensome. The first is the federally mandated secondary sewage standard. This is a requirement that will cost ratepayers billions and provide little benefit to the public or the environment. We also have an electronic light rail project that has been held up by various agencies' permitting processes for years. This is an environmentally beneficial project--one that promotes mass transit and clean air--and yet it has been tangled in a bureaucratic battle with various agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers since 1992. It is truly an example of an environmentally sound public project held hostage by Federal agencies which are supposed to facilitate projects like this. As the New York Times recently stated, ``. . . environmental policy too often has evolved largely in reaction to popular panics, not in response to sound scientific analysis of which environmental hazards present the greatest risks. Critics, naysayers, and ``Chicken Littles'' claim that we are ``rolling back 30 years of environmental protection.'' Please. What we are doing is assuring Americans the greatest degree of regulatory enforcement possible, based on sound science, with the limited resources we have available. It is unfair and ineffective to do anything short of this. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity here to respond to the American people's call for change, and to restore a measure of sanity and common sense to the Federal oversight which affects so many of them. I urge my colleagues to deliver on these positive changes, and join me in support of H.R. 1022.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, earlier today a colleague of mine on the Committee on Commerce made a reference to outrageous regulations and paperwork that government would have to do if this bill passed. Well, let me tell Members something. On the first day we actually passed a law that said that Congress will start living under the rules we set for other people. Maybe this bill is saying, government will start living by the rules that everybody in the United States has to live under, that we have to consider the cost-effectiveness of our actions before we initiate them. I find it ironic to see the people that have been screaming for years that we need more regulation and more paperwork now point to a situation where we are asking government to reciprocate, all at once they are worried about it. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I who work on environmental issues throughout this Nation, I for one in California, have been appalled over the years that the fact that our environmental regulations sent down from Washington have not had the effect of protecting the public in a manner that would be the most cost-effective and, thus, avoiding benefit that could be perpetuated if we were focusing on cost- effectiveness. In California, Mr. Chairman, we have for decades had a mandate for cost-effectiveness. It has not been a barrier to protecting the public health. It has been one of our greatest successes. In fact, in our Clean Air strategies, which I think all of us would agree is one of most successful programs in this country, California's clean air strategies have been made successful because we have a cost- effectiveness mandate, not regardless thereof. I think that we also need to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about the public health when we are talking about cost- effectiveness. We are talking about bringing some reasonable, logic into the formulation of our public health strategy. And I know there may be Members of this body that may get nervous when we talk about common sense and reasonableness, but that is all we are talking about here. We are not talking about dollars and cents, we are not talking about business. From this Member's point of view, when we talk cost- effectiveness, we talk about getting the most public health benefit for every dollar spent. The equates into the public health of our children, and without it, our children would be exposed. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this item, for our children's public health.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, last March I was in Israel and talked to mothers and fathers who have had to hide their children.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to consider that when we secure our borders, I hope that the gentleman understands that same threat when we talk about Border Patrol. And Border Patrol, because I live one mile from the border, it does not take a long distance missile to hit me. My family is under that threat. So let us remember the national defense.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, last March, when I talked to mothers and fathers who had lived in fear of their home being bombed by ballistic missiles, the comments they made were very strongly saying, we need not only this for Israel, we need this for the entire world so every country has it. My problem I am having is, I am hearing my colleagues from both sides of the aisle agree that we need to develop the technology. We need to be able to address the point that the facts are that there is more of a threat of a ballistic missile crossing into the United States territory than it is a foreign enemy tank coming in. But we have antitank technology. But we have not developed the technology. I think the issue comes down to the fact, I keep hearing the dialogue going back and forth of what not to do. I think the people of the United States say, if we are going to develop this technology to protect foreign countries, doggone it, the taxpayers have the right to have their country, America, defended with the same technology. I think that is all we are saying here. As this technology is developed to protect other countries, let us darn well make sure that we are protecting our children, our neighborhoods and our homes in the same way.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, there was a resonant message in the November elections: Americans are tired of Washington telling them what is best for their families and their communities. The bill we will consider today provides a response to that message. The crime bill passed by the House last year is a perfect example of Washington passing a big government-knows-best, one-size-fits all solution. We know, as the American people do, that the most innovative and effective solutions to our crime problems are found and developed by those closest to the problem. Today, as we consider the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act, I urge my colleagues to remember and respect the local control that will be granted by this legislation. H.R. 728 provides local units of government with the resources to fight the crime problem that sweeps our Nation. However, this bill does not dictate how these resources must be used. Instead, it provides unprecedented flexibility to those law enforcement officials closest to the crime problem. Funds in this bill can be used in a variety of ways--from improving security at schools to hiring and equipping law enforcement personnel. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side, and from President Clinton himself about our re-write of the crime bill. Here is what the Democrats had to say about the flexible funds available to localities in this bill: ``In short, these funds can--and no doubt will in too many cases--be used by local officials for ill-advised, wasteful, and even counterproductive uses.'' Apparently, the liberals in Congress and the White House think only Congress is wise enough to tell localities how best to spend their money. The truth is, the American people were angry at the presumption of the 1994 crime legislation. They know that pork barrel spending on discredited social programs will not keep their children safer. That is one of the main reasons they sent us to Washington--to pass legislation that does not merely masquerade as crime control.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as my California colleagues in the Senate continue to grapple whether or not to pass a balanced budget amendment I wish to insert an editorial published in the San Diego Union Tribune into the Congressional Record. I commend it to my California colleagues Boxer and Feinstein, and urge them to support the balanced budget amendment. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 26, 1995] Dissecting the Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment (By Brian Bilbray) The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, as proposed in the Republican's ``Contract with America,'' and developed into legislation with members of both parties, will accomplish a simple thing: It will set up a spending structure based upon priorities. The reason that we now have a $4.06 trillion debt is the result of a process without priorities. And yet those who still do not get it--liberal Democrats in Congress and the White House--recently mounted a systematic campaign against the balanced budget amendment, which is scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives today. The so-called ``right to know'' provision announced two weeks ago by Sen. Tom Daschle--in consultation with President Clinton--illustrates the state of deep denial that exists inside the Washington Beltway. The liberals' strategy is to discredit the amendment. They seek to accomplish this by scaring the American people, telling them that passage of a balanced budget amendment threatens Social Security, Medicare, agriculture supports and veterans benefits. However, opponents of the balanced budget amendment have made a tactical error. Eighty percent of the American people support a balanced budget amendment. They know it will force the same fiscal discipline on the federal government that they live with every day. The biggest spenders in Congress are the most ardent foes of the amendment because it hampers their ability to deliver to the special interests. These big spenders' so- called ``right to know'' amendment is really just obstructionism masquerading as principled scrutiny. Their amendment would require Republicans to provide a seven-year budget detailing what cuts they plan to make in order to get a zero budget deficit. When President Clinton presented his five-year budget in 1993, Democrats did not demand that he spell out where future cuts would be made. And yet they demand it from the Republican leadership. The very nature of their demand underscores the depth of their misunderstanding of the issue: A balanced budget amendment is not about programmatic changes to a $1.6 trillion federal budget. It is about fundamentally altering the process of allocating taxpayers' dollars to these programs. It is about setting spending limits and priorities. Which brings us to the best illustration of the fundamental differences between supporters of the amendment and its opponents: No one denies that a balanced budget amendment will force us to bite the bullet--the difference between Republicans and the liberals in Congress is who chews the lead. The big spenders in Congress and the White House are opposed to a provision in one form of the balanced budget legislation to require a three-fifths ``supermajority'' vote in order to pass an income tax increase. Clearly, as has been demonstrated by 40 years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, their systemic bias is to raise taxes instead of reducing expenditures. Who takes the hit? The taxpayers. From my perspective, spending cuts, not increased taxes, are the way to reduce the deficit. Thirty-one million Californians have lived with a balanced budget amendment for nearly 20 years. There is no reason why we cannot impose the same discipline at the federal level. The three-fifths vote requirement provides a safeguard for American taxpayers who have heard too many times that higher taxes will result in deficit reduction. Historically, higher taxes have in fact resulted in higher spending. The requirement of a supermajority vote will address our problem control spending. The balanced budget amendment will force the federal government to set priorities and then live within those priorities. The real culprit behind our national debt and yearly deficits is a process without discipline and virtually no mechanism to enforce discipline. The liberals in Congress who demand a seven-year budget to chart our course to a zero deficit miss the point. They wish, obviously, to perpetuate a process that is as destructive to future generations as it is to our own.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I tried to discuss this item. I crossed over the aisle and discussed it with the gentleman from North Carolina. I did have a concern and I think that that kind of communication was nothing personal on my vote. I was not in lockstep. The fact is that we built an $800 million facility trying to fight crime in the county of San Diego, and one of the major problems we had, too, is that we had to spend over a million dollars to get from the adjoining road to the site where we could build this facility. Now, I am sure my colleague from North Carolina did not mean to create that kind of barrier from being able to utilize these resources for different types of crime activity, but this was one that was a good example of where there would have been a legitimate facility built, legitimate expense that would have been blocked by his amendment. That is why I voted, not because I was in lockstep on this side of the aisle, but because, from practical application, I saw that this could be a barrier from doing what the bill wants us to accomplish, and that is fighting crime.

Mr. BILBRAY

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think this issue is the old bracelet concept. As an individual who has operated the system for 10 years, I just would like to point out to my colleague from California that we are really talking about apples and oranges here. This is a great system. We have used it as an alternative to incarceration, but as far as I know they are being used for presentenced individuals, they are not for sentenced individuals, as an addendum to incarceration, not as a guarantee to come back, because there is that issue of processing that has been addressed again and again. We have used that very effectively in San Diego County and across California, but to use it in lieu of bonding, I think we have administrative problems.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me just say as an individual who lives on the Mexican border, or very close, I look out my front doorstep and I can see the bull ring by the sea in Tijuana, the northern side, the fact is that it is very frustrating for everyone, including the law enforcement agencies that have to enforce our laws, but especially the citizens that have chosen their home to happen to be in the corner of our Nation. But too often it is treated almost as if we are not part of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Cunningham amendment for the reason that the revolving door that we find on the border has to be stopped. Frankly, I think we could get a lot more attention from our neighbors to the south about this problem if we could make returned all the way to the Federal District so that they would see in Mexico City exactly what we that live along the border have to confront. Let me close by saying, Mr. Chairman, that this is not just a problem that impacts those of us who live on the north side of the frontier. The citizens of Baja California Norte and citizens of Mexico along the border suffer again and again from the crime and the smuggling activity that this bill is trying to address. I think for those of us that live on both sides of the border along our frontiers, we need to be represented with this amendment, and I strongly ask Members to adopt this amendment.