Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, it is rare for both Houses of Congress to reach an agreement--fully bipartisan legislation. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in this manner in 1996. This bill eliminated the famous Delaney Clause for residues in raw and processed foods--replacing it with a scientific, rational standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Food, agricultural and consumer interests, as well as the pesticide industry saw the passage of FQPA as an opportunity to assure that sound science is paramount in EPA's determinations on the use of chemicals on crops, in homes and for public health concerns. FQPA required the EPA to establish scientific, rational, sound and reasonable standards. Mr. Speaker, sound science is what the authors intended and expected. This is what Congress wanted--sound science as the rule's foundation. Further, the new law provided an additional safety factor to protect infants and children, and new ways of assessing pesticide benefits and risks. This is something Congress fully supported and continues to support. Despite strong congressional support, implementing the law at the regulatory level has been a very difficult and unnecessarily complex process. In fact, only a few months after the law was passed, the FQPA implementation process broke down. Members of Congress voiced their concern. The problems were so great and concerns from America's agricultural industry so substantial that Vice President Gore sent a memorandum to both the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency on April 8, 1998. This memorandum laid out the White House's plan for putting FQPA's implementation on the right track. The White House's plan for FQPA implementation contained four basic principles: sound science in protecting pubic health, regulatory transparency, reasonable transition for agriculture, and consultation with the public and other agencies. America's agricultural and urban pest control community supported the Vice President's approach. Mr. Speaker, now, a year after the White House got directly involved in FQPA's implementation process, it remains derailed. It has become clear to me that Congress must again revisit this issue. It is my humble hope, we can revisit FQPA the way we left it, in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation. Mr. Speaker, Congress wanted a law to eliminate the scientifically inadequate and outdated Delaney Clause. What Congress and the Nation got was much worse. In fact, the EPA has failed to provide scientifically sound guidance to the regulated community. The EPA's approach follows a path toward great economic harm for agricultural producers and pest outbreaks causing diseases concerns for urban and suburban communities it is an approach that is without a scientific foundation. Farmers, the food industry, pest control interests, and many others are understandably concerned. Americans want and deserve a fair, workable implementation of the bipartisan law. Americans want and deserve rules that are based on real information and sound science. Americans want and deserve rules that follows the Vice President's stated goals. Americans want and deserve rules that fit FQPA's requirements. In order to achieve these results, I along with Mr. Towns, Mr. Condit and Mr. Boyd have introduced ``The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999.'' This legislation maintains the strong safety standards established by FQPA. This bill simply establishes a scientific-based process for implementing the law which will be based on sound, peer reviewed science and open for public review. Further, it ensures that agricultural producers across the country, who are already facing tough times, will not be adversely impacted by loss of crop protection tools because the EPA failed to use good science in reviewing crop protection tools under the new standards of FQPA. It will also ensure the consumers' food supply and food quality will not be affected by incomplete and faulty data. My legislation Accomplishes the Following The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 lays out the problems that the EPA has faced over the last few years in implementing the law. In many cases, the EPA simply does not know what to do because the scientific protocols for assessing certain crop protection products under the new law have not been developed. Further, it highlights the extreme negative consequences if the law is implemented improperly. For example, organophosphate insecticides are used on 70 percent of the acres treated in the United States and are used to control of vector insects that spread diseases. If the EPA continues on their current path, many of these products could be lost. Farmers will be left without replacement products and exposed to major losses due to pest outbreaks. Consequently, this will lead to either a shortage of quality produce or increase in import from countries where their farmers do not follow our stringent guidelines. It will also limit the ability of agencies to control vector insects, thus causing health risks for millions of Americans. This legislation will require the EPA to perform a simple ``transition analysis'' on products before releasing any information about the safety of the product to the public or making final tolerance decisions. If the transition analysis determines that the Administrator is using assumptions when existing data makes the use of the assumption unnecessary or is using worst case estimates, anecdotal, unverified, or scientifically implausible data, the Administrator cannot make final re-registration decisions on those products until sufficient time has been provided to allow the data to be developed, submitted and subsequently evaluated by the Agency. The Administrator is required to issue rules to implement the FQPA properly within one year of enactment of this bill. Further, the Administrator is required to issue guidelines specifying the kinds of information that will be required to support the issuance or continuation of a tolerance or exemption from the requirements for a tolerance and shall revise such guidelines from time to time. My bill provides protections, especially to small acreage farmers to ensure that they will not be left without crop protection tools. This legislation requires the Administrator to report to Congress priorities for registering new products that will replace products that are being removed from use and expedite the registration process. This will allow the farmers to continue to provide a safe, reliable food supply. The USDA and EPA are required to assess the potential negative trade effects of implementing FQPA. The program will monitor the competitive strength of major United States agricultural commodity sections in the international marketplace. Such commodity sectors include fruits and vegetables, corn wheat, cotton rice, soybeans and nursery and forest products. Mr. Speaker, FQPA must be implemented properly or grave results will occur. My bill gives this Congress a chance to do something good for the American people and the American Farmer. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to General Vasco Joaquin Rocha Vieira the Governor of Macao on the Third Meeting, or the ``Terceiro Econtro'' of the Macanese people. The ``Terceiro Encontro'' symbolizes the importance of cultural diversity, social cohesion, and international ties in the historic development of Macao. As the co-chair of the House Portuguese-American Caucus, and the only member of the House of Representatives of Portuguese ancestry I am very proud of the former Portuguese territory and its people. The Macanese people reflect a unique and positive blending of the European and Asian Cultures. They also have made very significant contributions to the social, political, and economic welfare in the communities in which they reside. The territory of Macao is situated on the meridional skirt of the China Coast and is scheduled to be turned over to the People's Republic of China on December 20, 1999. Throughout its more than 400 years of history, Macao has proudly been the stronghold of the Portuguese presence and culture in the Far East. The Portuguese flag was always flown in Macao, even during the Spanish occupation of Portugal. This proud history and strong roots makes the ``Terceiro Encontro'' a truly special event. Mr. Speaker please join me in once again congratulate General Vieira on this important event.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I quote: On January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to faithfully execute the office of President; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the President set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the President, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him. (A) William Jefferson Clinton made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate; (B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth; and (C) in as much as no person is above the law, William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil penalties. These are not the words of the Articles of Impeachment but the words of the Democrat resolution which was approved unanimously by the Democrats on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Even President Clinton agreed to accept this severe language. We all agree that the President committed these crimes, and yet there is great debate over impeachment. The President's defenders claim that this issue is only about a consensual sexual relationship. Tell that to Paula Jones. Her case started as a sexual harassment lawsuit where the President was subpoenaed and required to tell the truth, just like any other defendant. He made the decision to lie. In protecting himself from political and legal jeopardy, he deprived Paula Jones of her fair day in court. You or I would expect our fair day in court and no less. We have also been told that these hearings and this process were unfair and partisan. Partisan? Yes, the hearings were very partisan. It was very disturbing to watch the hearings as no Democrat came forward to work with the Republican majority. The partisan protection of the President at all costs will without doubt damage future Congresses. The process was fair to a fault. The Republicans allowed the President's defenders panels of witnesses who testified over dozens of hours. The Judiciary Committee allowed the President witnesses of his choice to defend his actions in front of Congress and the country. The committee offered the President an opportunity to appear in person, which he declined. Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde went beyond the norm to be fair. Another desperate claim made by the President's partisans is that impeaching and convicting the President would overturn an election. If the President is forced from office, his defeated opponent Bob Dole would not become President! Clinton's own Vice President Al Gore would. Gore was elected on the same ticket as Clinton and would step in, as the Constitution requires. Our Founding Fathers included impeachment in our Constitution to remove a sitting President. There is never a good time nor the right time to conduct an impeachment and convict a President, but unfortunately it has become necessary. When I had to make this very difficult decision I tried to put aside ideological and partisan differences. I cleared my head and made a decision based on facts, not emotion. I read the report, supporting documents and the conclusion the committee came to. I made the decision to support the four articles of impeachment, not as a matter to punish Bill Clinton, but to protect the rule of law. Future presidents and congresses will look at this precedent to determine the proper behavior of those presidents and congresses. Perjury on multiple occasions, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power are impeachable offenses and Bill Clinton and no future President should be allowed to hold office after having committed these offenses.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I come to the floor reluctantly opposed to the bill and reluctantly opposed to the manager's amendment. I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) a minute ago say that the manager's amendment was inconsequential, that it really did not do anything. Well, it does do things. It takes a lot of things out of the bill that I care about, it takes things out that I think made this bill better than it will be after the manager's amendment passes. It also adopts a provision that will be included in this particular bill that is known as the California Coastal Rocks and Islands Wilderness Act of 1998 that I do not think anybody in this place knows or has any clue how many thousands of rocks and islands and reefs and everything else that will be included in that; nobody has any idea what will be included in that. And I oppose including that in this bill. I also believe that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) went way too far in accepting changes to try to make this bill work, and I know he was trying to put a bill together that would work for people, he was trying to put good legislation together that we could pass and that the President would sign. But as far as this Member is concerned, he went way too far. He went way too far in trying to codify and trying to accept the things that these people that are down here complaining about the bill wanted. He did not get a single vote for doing all that. And as far as I am concerned, he ought to strip all that stuff out, and then maybe we will vote on it. But I appreciate the gentleman having yielded to me.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. This bill, H.R. 2508, is the culmination of many years of work that we have put in in trying to address the educational needs of the community that I am from, Tracy, California. The city and the school district have come up with a very innovative idea, and that is to create a school that will be a high-technology school that will take all the way from kindergarten through post-secondary education. Madam Speaker, as part of that, a small portion of this land would also be dedicated for economic development. That small portion of this land that is dedicated to economic development will be targeted toward high-technology firms, which will have the ability to come in and set up a cooperative effort with the school district so that the kids that are graduated from this school, with the vocational education that they need, can go directly from education into working for these high- technology firms. It is an innovative idea. It is something that a lot of people have worked extremely hard on in coming up with this plan. But once they came up with the plan for what they were going to do, they needed a site to locate that school. This particular site is located just on the outskirts of town. It is currently located in an area that is zoned either as industrial or residential. It is located right across the street from a major residential development which is planned for the future. It is an ideal site for this kind of a high- technology school to be located. It is also very near the new rail system that is being put in where people will be commuting from the Central Valley in California over to the Bay area. So as far as a transportation corridor, it is ideally located for a post-secondary educational facility, as well as for the needs of the high schools in the area. Madam Speaker, the city has estimated that over the next 12 years, there is going to be a need for two additional high schools to be built in the City of Tracy. This will just be one of those additional high schools. I think what we have put together is a plan that is a win-win for everyone. It is creating tax revenue for the local city. It is giving the city a facility for economic development, as well as addressing the needs of our kids in the Federal Government providing just the land for a site for a school system. So, it is very positive. I think it is a win-win situation for everybody. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee who worked with me in putting together this legislation. They were invaluable in trying to negotiate something that was fair to the Federal taxpayer as well as fair to the local school district and local city. I thank them for all the hard work they put in.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Am I to understand the gentleman from California has objected to my asking for an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, from March Second to March Sixth 1998, the First General Assembly of the World Council of Whalers took place in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. More than 125 representatives from twenty-three nations were in attendance including both government officials and non-government observers. Over the course of the discussions, one of the main topics was the adverse impact of protectionist campaigns and associated governmental policies. These have affected traditional whaling, food security, nutrition, and religious and cultural identities of humankind from the Arctic Ocean regions to nations in the Pacific Ocean, and from Scandinavia to the Carribean. The sustainable use of renewable marine and wildlife resources under proper management is a commitment the international community should recognize and support. And yet, we have witnessed that in many cases emotion and subjective philosophies have become national policy regarding certain species. If the scientific evidence supports consumptive use of a renewable resource that provides food, economic, cultural and religious benefit to people, it should be permitted regardless of whether the subject species is an elephant, a plant, a tree or a whale. This is a commitment the community of nations must make if true conservation of flora and fauna is to be successful on this planet. At the conclusion of the General Assembly, a Resolution was passed that I suggest my colleagues review. Although the basic concept of the Resolution calls for the recognition of sustainable use of non- endangered whales, it is important to note that its application could apply to any species. This is a fundamental principle that should be recognized by governments when formulating policy on the international regulation of whaling. The World Council of Whalers First General Assembly March 2-6, 1998 Resolution Whereas, whaling and the sustainable use of whales by peoples around the world contribute significantly to community identity and integrity by satisfying socio- economic, cultural, religious and dietary needs; Whereas, high seas whale resources are important natural resources for the benefit of all mankind; Whereas, the current majority of members of the International Whaling Commission have failed to meet their legal obligations under the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling by: (a) maintaining the moratorium on commercial whaling and adopting a sanctuary in the Antarctic Ocean without regard to ``scientific findings'' as required by the Convention and by (b) ignoring the requirement that regulations on whaling ``take account of the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry''; and that these actions have, caused severe socio- economic and cultural distress to whaling communities. The World Council of Whalers: 1. Affirms its conviction that the sustainable use of whales is essential for the food security, culture and health of peoples, and that commercial activities related to the sustainable use of whales are appropriate and as such, is acknowledged by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11); and recognized by the Kyoto Declaration of 1995 regarding food security. 2. Emphasizes that, in accordance with Article 1 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and Article 1 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, no people may be deprived of its own means of subsistence; 3. Underscores the consensus of the international community, as reflected in Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity, that indigenous peoples and local communities should continue to be sustainable users and stewards of the living resources upon which they have traditionally depended for their livelihood; 4. Concludes that Regional organizations involving resource users are the most appropriate bodies to responsibly manage renewable marine resources and that the use of international institutions or the use or threat of unilateral trade measures to prevent resource users from harvesting whales in a sustainable manner is a violation of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as a violation of the legal obligations of states under the above noted instruments. Now therefore be if resolved: 1. That the World Council of Whalers is united in the cause of sustainable use and human rights to natural resource use and committed to continue their cooperation in furthering the objectives of the organization; 2. That the World Council of Whalers supports the aspirations of those, particularly, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth First Nations, Iceland and the small-type whaling communities in Japan, wishing to exercise their right to sustainably use whales; 3. That the World Council of Whalers recognizes the sovereign prerogatives of nations to utilize resources on a sustainable basis; and 4. That the World Council of Whalers encourages its members to ensure that national representation to appropriate international fora includes members of their communities involved in the sustainable use of whales. And urges: 1. That the World Council of Whalers submit a copy of this Resolution to their respective legislative assembly and appropriate administrator of their government; 2. That the World Council of Whalers transmit a copy of this Resolution to each Commissioner of the International Whaling Commission, to the secretariats of the International Whaling Commission, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations International Year of the Ocean, the United Nations Decade of Indigenous Peoples of the World, the United Nations Decade of Education in Human Rights and, other appropriate international organizations; 3. That the International Whaling Commission recognize and accept its legal obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling; 4. That the Parties to CITES acknowledge their legal obligations under that Convention; and 5. That National Governments be responsive to the petitions from the rights of aboriginal and coastal peoples related to the sustainable use of renewable marine resources.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 512) to prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to a recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to create the refuge, as amended.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, a little history on this particular legislation. I introduced this legislation four years ago in Congress in response a problem that had arisen and come to my attention over the creation of a new wildlife refuge. Over the past several years, Congress has authorized 70 new wildlife refuges throughout this country of the 513 current. The rest of the 443 refuges were created with little or no oversight by Congress. I feel it is very important that Congress fulfill its responsibility as a watchdog of the taxpayer money in the creation of a new wildlife refuge. Currently, the refuge system is suffering a construction and maintenance backlog of over $600 million. At the same time, every single year we create new wildlife refuges throughout the country. During the effort that has been made over the past year to bring this legislation to the floor, compromise legislation was reached with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), that we believe everyone has agreed to at this point. What it does is it in essence requires that upon the creation of a new wildlife refuge, that Members must be notified if a refuge is being created in their district; that all the environmental documents, the environmental assessment, the environmental impact statement and a summary of the public comments relating to the proposed new refuge must be given to the Congressional committee of authority, as well as the appropriating committee; and that notices of scope and meetings required under the NEPA process are published in local newspapers notifying the people who live in that particular area that there is the possibility of creation of the new wildlife refuge in that area. Mr. Speaker, we also clarify, and I believe this is very important, that the determination of the boundary for a new refuge does not impose any additional Federal land use restrictions as a result of simply determining the proposed boundary until the land is acquired by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, so the people that are affected by this directly, those people who have chosen to live and work near our national forests, are opposed to it; and yet this amendment, if adopted, would adopt this policy?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have some kind of a national forest policy that takes care of our forests, that ensures that we have healthy forests that are full of wildlife and all the things that in our mind's eye we think of when we think of national forests, this is the wrong way to go; because what this is saying is we are not going to get together in a bipartisan fashion, we are not going to hold hearings, we are not going to go out to the forests and look at them and see what is there. We are not going to do anything that our constituents expect us to do. What we are going to do is, we are just going to willy-nilly accept any policy that this administration has in effect, or anything that they have proposed to put into effect, and we are going to accept that. That is not what our constituents expect us to do. That is not what they sent us back here to do. Whether we agree or disagree with the underlying bill, our constituents did not send us back here to vote blindly for any policy that this administration has in effect or anything that they proposed. When we talk about the roadless, they have not even finished the hearing process. They have not even finished the comment period process, and we are going to accept it. They have not even finished it yet, and we are going to accept it. That is bad public policy. I have only been here for a short period of time compared to most of my colleagues, but I can tell them there is no way that their constituents expect them to come back here, and I have never seen anything like this put on the floor of the House, where we will just blindly accept whatever policies the administration has in effect or anything that they have proposed

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman, how many policies and proposals are there out there that the administration has that this could possibly impact?

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would answer that by saying at least we are having debate and a vote on that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has no clue, all of the policies and proposals that the Boehlert amendment would include. We cannot even debate that single issue.