Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal privilege.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the previous speech, I was a bit puzzled to hear that the nuclear Navy is subject to the EPA and NRC. If that were true, then there would be and there would never have been any need to include them in this bill. They are exempt from the Clean Water Act, they are exempt from the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, and they self- regulate. Unlike any other polluter in America, the nuclear Navy tells us they have adopted standards, they are meeting their standards and we should not worry about it. Well, if that is good enough for the nuclear Navy, perhaps we should look at that approach for private interests or municipal interests. I resent the fact that my municipal government has to be monitored by the EPA for its sewer system. It costs money. But at some point we do not allow self-regulation. I realize that of course the Navy is certainly holding itself to higher standards and certainly meeting its own conditions, and if that is true, then it will cost them nothing to comply.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, again the question is, Why should we grant a blanket exemption under this bill when the President has the authority as Commander in Chief to exempt any individual military facility? In particular, why is it in the States of California, Idaho, and South Carolina that we would exempt facilities that are closed or being decommissioned? It is particularly puzzling. Even beyond that, I think the residents of the other States, and the list is long, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Idaho, Washington, Hawaii, Connecticut, I think the residents of those States should ask, what is it that the Federal Government is putting into the water that no industry in America is allowed to put into the water, that no local government in America is allowed to put into their water, whether it is recreational water or drinking water or just something that happens to flow through their community; what is it that the Feds are putting in that they need this blanket exemption? I think that is a question that should be answered. All I am saying is put back in the words, subject the Federal Government to the same requirements as everyone else in this country, the same way we subjected the Congress of the United country, for the sake of consistency make the Federal Government follow its own laws, and if it needs an exemption for national security purposes, the bill allows it with a simple signature by the President of the United States.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman. Again, just back to the basic point here. If indeed there is a threat to national security, particularly at those closed bases or the base that is being decommissioned----

Mr. DeFAZIO. This would exempt 12 Federal facilities, Mr. Chairman, from the laws that every other local government, State government and industry would be subjected to. Furthermore, we will hear, I am certain, and the gentlewoman is familiar with this from her work on the committee, the claim that they need an exemption for national security purposes. The bill allows the President with the stroke of a pen to exempt anything, any Federal facility, if that is necessary. Beyond that, two are closed and one is being decommissioned. Why would we remove a closed or a decommissioned facility from jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act for national security purposes?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that neither the staff nor I caught this before the technical amendments had gone through the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The committee saw fit to include them under the bill and then the technical amendments removed them from the jurisdiction of this bill.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the committee would restore three words that were in the act as it passed out of committee. Those three simple words, which were struck yesterday by the so-called technical amendments and an unamendable amendment at the beginning of consideration, are very important because they would subject the Federal Government of the United States and Federal facilities to the same laws that apply to every State, to every private entity in America and every municipal entity in America. Should we grant a broad exemption to Federal facilities in this bill from the Clean Water Act when private contractors, industry, municipal governments, county governments, sewer districts and others cannot get such broad exemptions? I think that for the sake of consistency, most Members of the House would argue no. We are going to hear further that this exemption is warranted for national security purposes, because most of these facilities, these are nuclear Navy facilities, are essential to the defense of the United States. There is another section in the bill, and that section allows the President of the United States, by simple Executive order, to exempt any Federal facility or operation from all the requirements of this bill, but that would require a separate action. I would argue that that would be the more consistent way to deal with these facilities. If some of them truly need an exemption from the Clean Water Act, I do not know what they are doing or what they are putting in the water that they need exemptions. But if they need exemptions so that they can put things in the water that industries and local governments are not allowed to put in the water, then they should ask the Commander in Chief for individual exemptions so there is at least some level of accountability and scrutiny applied. There are 10 States directly affected by this amendment, and a total of 12 States when you consider downstream entities. Again, the question is what is it that is objected to by the Federal Government? What can the Federal Government not do? What are they putting in the water? I think the people who live in or represent those 12 States should ask that question. I think their constituents are going to ask them that question in the future. What are they putting in the water that we will not allow industry to put in the water, that we will not allow local governments to put in the water? What is the Federal Government putting in my water it needs a blanket exemption under the act?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Does this exemption go narrowly to that 1 percent for San Diego, or does exemption go beyond that?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am talking about the difference between the 84 percent and the 100 percent.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, do you think 16 percent is infinitesimal?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I will tell you, reclaiming my time, in my metropolitan wastewater facility, of which I was on the board of directors as a county commissioner, we built it for $110 million. We get 100 percent out. We do secondary and we do tertiary treatment. Theoretically, if one wanted to, one could drink the outfall. I do not want to drink the outfall. I do not know that we have to drive everything to that standard. But to think of the ocean as an endless dump close in proximity, I realize you have a big problem with Mexico, basically you are saying Mexico can dump all their stuff in there, why cannot we not just dump in a small amount of our stuff. I do not think that is the solution. I think we should be forcing Mexico to clean up so the people in California can go to the beach every day in the future.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that I have seen some alternatives around the world that do intrigue me. If we are going to go to this broad of an exemption from secondary treatment, for instance in Hong Kong, I was there and on the ferry early one morning, and I noticed how they deal with it, they do not require secondary; in many cases they do not require primary treatment. They are a little oversubscribed to their sewer system. They have nifty boats that go around the harbor with nets in the front and they scoop up everything that floats, and if it does not float, it is not a problem. So I guess can say we are headed in that direction. We can buy some of the nifty little boats from Hong Kong with the nets on the front and drive them around the beachfront areas in the morning before people go in for that swim, and you know if you cannot see it, it is not a problem.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referenced the balanced budget. He cannot get to a balanced budget while increasing military spending, cutting taxes for the wealthy and the largest corporations, and here is the proof, the Republican budget. It is impossible to do that unless, unless you want to gut virtually every other program of the Federal Government from child nutrition to student loans, to Federal law enforcement, to veterans benefits, Medicare, and, yes, Social Security. They will all take a massive cut so the Pentagon can continue its wanton spending and the wealthy can put another BMW in the garage. I expected that kind of a budget, but never, never did I expect that the Republicans would go back on their pledge to not touch Social Security. Buried deep in this budget is a little change in the COLA factor, just a little change. It will cut future retirement benefits for veterans, future retirement benefits for military retirees, future benefits for every Civil Service retiree. And yes, Social Security benefits, too, starting in 1999 will be reduced by their budget.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we finally got an outline of the proposed Republican budget. It is in violation of the Budget Act, a bit late, but better late than never. I have got to say there is one thing I find I have in common, which is I share their objective to get deficit spending under control and to bring the Federal Government's budget into balance by the year 2002. But past that point, I find we have tremendous differences, and they revolve around the basic approach taken by the Republican Party on this matter. That is, Mr. Speaker, their first assumption is that we will not reduce military spending. That is the largest discretionary item from the Federal budget. The Pentagon will take no reductions. The Pentagon, which will have a budget in fact increased above the President's requests in this budget, a budget which is equivalent to the last budget of the great cold war with the Soviet Union, we will still fund 100,000 troops in Europe waiting for the invasion of the Soviet Union into West Germany, unified Germany anyhow, somewhere into that region. We will still spend $60 billion a year in defense of Japan against the Soviet Union. We will still produce stealth bombers with no objective, at the cost of $1 billion each. We will produce a myriad of other weapons systems that we no longer need that would not have worked in any case against our principal adversary of 10 years ago. However, we cannot ask for a penny of cuts at the Pentagon. We know they are spending every dollar wisely. That is off the table. Then we come to the revenue side. On the revenue side, actually what we are going to do is reduce revenues in order to reach a balanced budget. That does not make sense to most Americans, Mr. Speaker. Most Americans who are having a little trouble making their car payment, house payment, utility payment, and buying clothes for their kids would not think they could reduce their income and get their home budget in balance. No, indeed, through the miracles in budgeting here in the U.S. Congress, that is exactly what we are going to do. According to the Republican budget proposal, we will reduce income by $340 billion, not decrease the military by a penny, and we will get to a balanced budget. One might ask ``How are we to do that, given that the largest single discretionary expenditure will not be reduced, the military; given the fact that we will reduce our incomes by $350 billion?'' We are going to do it by gutting virtually everything else in the Federal budget that is important to average and working American families. Mr. Speaker, we will eliminate the Women, Infants, and Children Program. We will cut back on the School Lunch Program. We will reduce student loans, dramatically. After all, who needs a student loan program? Certainly not the wealthy, who are going to get very generous tax cuts under this proposal. In fact, they will have so much discretionary income they will be buying another BMW. They are not worried about sending their kids to college. Middle-income families, average folks, those struggling to find a way for their kids to go to college, sorry, the Federal Government has to balance its budget, and it has to give tax cuts to the wealthy, and it has to give tax cuts to the largest corporations, repeal the alternative minimum tax, and it cannot find a penny of reductions in the military budget. This is all laid out here in a rather brutal reality by the Republican majority in this House. I do not believe that these are the priorities of the American people. They are certainly not my priorities. We have just received these documents, so, as I stand here, I am paging through to look for some of the more interesting portions. We can find places to cut back in natural resources and environmental protection. We can find places to cut back in energy development, particularly in renewable energy resources and cleanup of hazardous waste sites. We cannot find much to cut in agriculture, $13 billion a year in subsidies. Sam Donaldson getting $75,000 a year to not raise sheep on the ranch that he does not live on, we cannot cut that. We could not cut Sam Donaldson. He might give some negative press to the majority party. Business as usual. When the Democrats were in charge, we could not cut Sam Donaldson. Now the Republicans are in charge, they cannot cut the Sam Donaldsons in the world. He should get the $75,000 on the ranch on which he does not live, he is going to live there some day. This is not the bare bones budget we need, and it does not make cuts in the proper priorities.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, today's young people think I am making a joke when I tell them about a river catching fire. That actually happened to the Cuyahoga in Ohio, it was so polluted with industrial wastes and inflammable solvents. In Oregon 3 million residents take for granted the fact they can swim, fish, and even drink Willamette River water. Well, the Willamette River was more like an open sewer in the mid 1960's than it was a pristine river. They say you cannot turn back the clock. Who would want to turn back the clock to those bad old days? Who indeed? Well, watch for the votes on this bill. A vote for this bill is a vote to turn back the country to the days when our rivers were more like open sewers and industrial cesspools than they were precious resources.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, a young constituent from Oregon's Fourth District has expressed through her writing a deep and patriotic understanding of our Nation. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary presented Ms. Jennifer Breyer with the state award of the Voice of America Scholarship program. I ask that her Vision of America be included in the Congressional Record. My Vision For America (By Jennifer Breyer) ``I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. Life is no brief candle for me, it is a sort of splendid torch that I have got hold of for a moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.''-- George Bernard Shaw This is my vision for America. Wouldn't it be wonderful if each citizen of the United States of America could take their candle and make it burn as brightly as possible for as long as they live? Wouldn't it be exciting if every citizen in this country could have this opportunity to make their dreams come true? In America we are known to live in a Land of Prosperity, a Land of Hope, and a Land of Freedom, but are we truly free if we have not had the opportunity to accomplish our dreams but instead have been confined to small, everyday tasks? We are free only if we are able to accomplish our dreams and make our vision for America become reality. My vision for America is to make this country be as strong as it possibly can be and make it clear to the world that we are truly the luckiest people on this earth. But in order to do that, each citizen in this great nation has a responsibility, not only to themselves but also to their country. You see, all of us are given a candle, but it is up to us, as individuals to take our candle and make it burn as brightly as we can. They say you can always tell where the lamplighter has been by the path he has lit. But what if each and every one of us didn't have to follow the lamplighter's course but instead took our candles and made our own paths. We could make this nation shine like a great star in the sky. Wouldn't it be wonderful if each American citizen could take their candle and pass it on to a newborn child, and explain that he has one chance, and only one chance in his lifetime to make his stand in this nation. Can the people of this nation join together for one final stand? Can they unite and join candles so that every individual may feel as if they were part of another? Can we put aside the race or religion of people and say, ``You are my fellow citizen, you can stand next to me, and you can fight with me for our country, the beautiful United States of America.'' Ladies and gentlemen, my vision is one of a far off dream, one that may never come true, but that has made my life worth living for. My vision may not come true in reality but in my mind and in my dreams it has always been. For if I accomplish one thing in my life, it will be to pass my candle on to a newborn child, and let the legacy for the next generation live on. If the world is a better place for just one person, then my life and yours has been a success. I wish you all the best of luck in your quest for your Vision of America. I have found my vision, and I hope you will find yours as well. Thank you.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak particularly to the Traficant amendment which will be before this body soon. The question that must be decided by this Congress: Is one-tenth of 1 percent of the Coast Guard budget too much to prevent loss of life? We heard already the actuarial statistics from the Coast Guard, cold numbers; that is, once in 12 years each of these 23 stations will experience a loss of life because of the closures. That means two lives per year. We are saving $2.6 million for two lives per year if we believe the Coast Guard estimate. The last time the Coast Guard closed these 2 life saving stations in my district five people drowned within a 2-month period, so maybe they are off by factor of two, or three, or five. I say to my colleagues, however you look at it, if you use the most conservative estimates, we're going to say that there is not one-tenth of 1 percent of waste in the entire $2.7 billion operating budget of the U.S. Coast Guard? If that agency is run so well that there is not a penny of waste, then we should put them in charge of the Pentagon, we should put them in charge of HUD, we should put them in charge of all of the Federal Government of the United States of America. Is there anybody on this side of the aisle who believes there is any Federal operation, any Federal agency, that doesn't have one-tenth of 1 percent of savings they can't find if they look hard? That's what we are debating here, lives. We're going to lose lives; people are going to die. I can put names to the people who died in my district the last time we did this. Five people in 2 months, but they tell us, ``No, it will only be two people a year.'' Well, even if it's one person a year, I believe that this body will be making a mistake if it doesn't tell the Coast Guard to go back to the drawing boards, find that one-tenth of 1 percent of savings and fully fund these life saving stations.

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