Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my strong support for the passage of the National Monuments Fairness Act, which ensures the people's rights to public land are protected. For too many years the executive branch has abused the Antiquities Act by proclaiming thousands upon thousands of square miles of land as national monuments. Such actions do not reflect the original intention of the Antiquities Act, which was aimed to protect small areas of land and specific items of historical importance which were in imminent danger of destruction. The National Monument Fairness Act will restore balance to the national monument designation process by requiring congressional approval and public input. The people of America deserve input as to how their public lands are managed, and Nevadans can no longer afford to be left out of this process. Close to 90 percent of the State of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government. It is time to ensure the rights of the people to their land. I encourage my colleagues to support the National Monuments Fairness Act.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, America's economic recovery requires an energy plan, and Americans are watching gas prices in preparation for summer vacations, reminding all of us that oil products are the core of our American economy. If we expect Americans to hop on airplanes and climb into cars, we must immediately implement the House energy plan. Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens are also watching for the latest terrorism alerts. If we want our friends to visit our Nation's great cities and landmarks, we must provide them with security. By supporting H.R. 4, we can reduce dependence on foreign oil and make this country safer from unstable rogue nations that consider us their enemy. H.R. 4 provides for increased domestic oil production, which will increase new jobs and boost economic development. Our economy is growing stronger by the day, but without a new energy plan there is no guarantee that we will have the resources we need to see continued improvement. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 provides long-term answers to our Nation's energy needs. We must reject the radical opposition's political games which may appease special interest groups, but do not reflect this Nation's need for jobs, economic security, nor its energy needs.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as summer days get longer and hotter, the risk of forest fires continues to increase. Just last week a 1,500-acre wildfire burned in Pioche, Nevada. Dedicated firefighters kept the blaze from the small Nevada town, located about 190 miles north of Las Vegas. Today I would like to echo the sentiments expressed by Lincoln County Sheriff's Sergeant John Wilcock. He said, ``If it hadn't been for the quick response by volunteer firefighters and the BLM, the town could have been gone.'' Thank you to all of our Nation's firefighters who risk their own lives every day to save the homes and lives of others. As a proud resident and Representative of a Western State, I know firsthand the unique challenges our firefighters face in preventing and putting out wildfires. Nevadans value your work, your commitment and your heroism.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I have heard these arguments on the floor, and let me say to my colleagues in the room, that is absolutely not a waste of time. When my fellow Nevadans elected me to come to Congress, they entrusted me with a great responsibility of keeping their families safe, their economy strong, and their taxes low; and by supporting this bill, by passing the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act, we are going to fulfill those obligations. In making the elimination of the marriage penalty tax permanent, we will provide married couples across the Nation peace of mind to plan for their financial security for years to come. After all, why would we want our hardworking families to begin receiving additional financial security through this important tax relief only to turn around and strip them, as the Democrats would like to do, 10 years from the date and add to their tax burden. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives will once again show the American people that we are caring about the American family and that we are here taking care of the business that we were elected to do, and last year when the President signed the historic tax cut package into law, the people of Nevada knew that they would finally begin to be keeping more of their own money after having paid into the government more than it needed to operate; and by passing last year's tax relief package, Congress put hard-earned dollars back into the pockets of 76,304 deserving married couples in Nevada's Second Congressional District alone, and Statewide nearly 150,000 Nevada couples sought relief from the onerous marriage penalty tax. If we fail to pass this bill today, we will be increasing their taxes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this week we are going to bring up the elimination of the sunset clause for the marriage penalty tax. Mr. Speaker, 120,000 individuals in my State, 60,000 married couples, are affected by this tax. If we allow this tax to come back, to rise from the dead one more time in the year 2010, we are going to do severe injustice to those 60,000 couples. Couples are going to end up paying $1,300, $1,400 more in tax simply because they are married. This is an unjust and unfair clause, and we must eliminate the sunset clause so that this tax remains buried once and for all. We cannot afford to have our married couples deciding whether or not they should remain married over paying a tax.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Committee on the Judiciary and especially the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for taking a good hard look at this legislation that was proposed by my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and myself. When we first brought this legislation to the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am sure, Mr. Speaker, he had his doubts about what the Representative from Utah and the Representative from Nevada had in mind, or what these two Westerners were even up to. But he took his time to study this issue, learn about the two communities, and the Committee on the Judiciary chairman even paid us a visit to the two communities of West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah. Let me say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), we want to thank him for taking a thoughtful look at this bill and hearing directly from those who will be most affected by any potential annexation, our constituents in both Nevada and Utah. Mr. Speaker, so that each of my colleagues can get a better understanding of this legislation, let me provide a brief explanation to expand on what I believe will be the comments of the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) later on. First arriving in Washington, D.C., during the 105th Congress, both the communities of Wendover, Nevada, and West Wendover, Utah, have approached me on the idea of forming a single Wendover. As the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) will articulate, because of the unique circumstance, these two communities are already virtually a single community, separated by an invisible line through their community, which happens to divide the State of Utah and the State of Nevada. But where they appear to be virtually one, as anybody who has ever driven I-80 west from Salt Lake City could attest to, they are not a single community. As a matter of fact, these two small communities live with an onerous duplication of services, including fire, police, court systems, as well as separate utility and school systems. There are two Wendovers. Each serve as one of the friendliest places out West, but they represent perhaps the least efficient two communities in the West. Indeed, these two communities have been exploring the idea of becoming one Wendover for several years and, together with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), we want to give them that opportunity. To clear up the confusion that often accompanies this legislation, passage of H.R. 2054 will not move the State boundary. What it will do is give the consent of this body that the two communities, through the State governments in Nevada and Utah, can begin negotiation of an annexation agreement process. The two State legislatures would have to ratify one agreement, an agreement which would then, and only then, provide for such annexation and joining of these two communities, as should be agreed to in order to take place. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not a mandate on the communities. This November, both West Wendover, Nevada and Wendover, Utah will vote on the referendum to determine how they wish to proceed on this issue, and this is exactly how the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I envision the process of carrying this out. Let the local communities decide their fate and give Congress the ability to provide our consent by supporting H.R. 2054. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the Committee on the Judiciary, and I urge support for this bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, ``turf,'' as everyone knows, is sacred in Washington, D.C., and the favorite parlor game in Washington D.C. is turf war. Every Member of Congress, every committee and agency fights hard to maintain their turf; and I am concerned that turf battles may impede what is best for our Nation. This morning, I testified in support of H.R. 4660, a bipartisan bill to create a Secretary of Homeland Security and a Director to the National Office of Combatting Terrorism. This legislation includes three main points. First, it gives budget authority to those in charge of protecting our Nation's homeland. Second, it provides Congress the oversight we must have over this new office. Finally, this legislation will reorganize government to allow better information-sharing both vertically and horizontally. As we proceed, Congress must be mindful that the safety of the American people is more important than the power struggles of a few agencies or Congressmen. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in this important effort, move beyond turf battles, and do what is right for the American people.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we did the work of the American people today. Americans believe that it is time to permanently eliminate the death tax, and this body took that confident step, they took that confident step today for the great benefit of the American people. I can say this with great confidence since I spoke with many small businesses back in the great State of Nevada during the past week. Each business owner I talked to, such as those of Click Bond in Carson City, Nevada, stated they would have had to close or sell their business should anything have happened to them individually and the death tax had been reinstated. They praised Congress for passing last year's tax relief bill and pleaded we make the death tax elimination permanent so they can pass on to future generations their businesses and their farms. Mr. Speaker, our permanently eliminating the death tax was the fair and right thing to do. No Nevadan, no American should have to mourn the loss of a family business and a loved one at the same time. I applaud my colleagues for doing what was right for the American people.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today this House will consider two bills under suspension which will make parts of the tax relief package that we passed last year permanent. I encourage all my colleagues to support these bills and to support making last year's tax relief bill permanent in its entirety. By not doing so, we will force thousands of married couples to once again pay the unfair marriage penalty tax beginning in 2010. We will force thousands of small business owners to sell their companies for fear that they will not be able to afford the estate tax that will be reinstated. Americans approved of last year's tax relief package. Now it is time to make it permanent to ensure that Americans do not face the largest tax increase in history in just a few years. Mr. Speaker, this past week I met with many Nevadans, and this was the message they wanted me to bring back to Washington: Make tax relief permanent.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, over the years the true meaning of Memorial Day has faded from the public consciousness. Memorial Day began after the Civil War as a solemn day of mourning, remembrance, and honor to our departed loved ones. But today, Memorial Day seems to be more about planning a 3-day weekend than remembering our fallen heroes. As a veteran of two wars, I know all too well that Memorial Day is much more than a 3-day weekend or the beginning of a summer sale. Veteran's Day, a day set aside to honor all veterans, living and dead, is celebrated on November 11, regardless of which day of the week it falls on. The same should be true for Memorial Day. Mr. Speaker, this week I am introducing legislation restoring Memorial Day to its actual day, May 30. We owe our loved ones and friends who died in service to their country a restored Memorial Day.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well here to express my concerns that Memorial Day is losing its true meaning. It has degenerated into a day where only token nods of the head toward our honored dead are given, if at all. Many people do not know that at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day, we should take a moment of silence in recognition for the lives lost for freedom's sake. But we cannot blame the American public. After all, it was Congress that made the day into a 3-day weekend in the early 1970s. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, Veterans' Day is celebrated on November 11, regardless of which day of the week it falls on, and Memorial Day should also be the same. Mr. Speaker, in honor of the thousands of men and women who have given their lives fighting for the freedom we enjoy today, and those currently fighting for the freedom we will enjoy tomorrow, let us restore Memorial Day to its original date, May 30. We owe our loved ones and friends who died in service to our country a restored Memorial Day.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years we have all witnessed how well our Nation's welfare system can work. Taking a look at this chart, we can see that in 1996 we had over 14 million welfare cases on the books, and in the year 2002 we now have 5 million. Nine million Americans have moved from welfare to work, a success story. We have heard the success stories from thousands of Americans who have moved from the welfare-to-work process. Now these former welfare recipients have the ability to support their families, hold down jobs and pay their bills. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, they have recovered their dignity and self-esteem that was once lost to the bureaucracy of welfare. We promised America 6 years ago that welfare reform would get people back to work. Despite the doubts and naysaying of our critics, we have kept that promise. And while the latest welfare reduction statistics are very impressive, there is always room for improvement. This is our chance to reach out and do the right thing again to the people in need. We owe it to the millions of people that we have already gotten off the welfare rolls, and we owe it to the next million eager to join them. I urge Members to support H.R. 4700, and I urge them to stand up today and do the right thing.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, last week I had a wonderful opportunity to meet two exceptional emergency technicians from Reno, Nevada: Don Vonarx and Ken Whittaker. These two Reno EMTs were recently granted the Stars of Life Award which is the highest honor given in their professional field. Don and Ken are tremendous examples of tenacious, compassionate, and remarkable individuals who have shown courage and leadership in their professional commitment. Whether training hundreds of emergency care providers, deploying life-saving equipment to those in need, or designing speciality EMT classes for people of every age, these gentlemen have shown extraordinary success in helping to save lives throughout Nevada. Their success is reflected in both their accomplishments and especially in their professional and personal relationships with student and colleagues. We are truly blessed to have both Don Vonarx and Ken Whittaker working as emergency medical technicians in my home town of Reno, and I am honored to know them both.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his generous use of time and for allowing me to make a few final remarks as we close this debate on one of the most important issues that the State of Nevada has faced over 20 years. Mr. Speaker, there are no nuclear generating facilities in Nevada. If we looked at all of the debris as a result of the nuclear testing that Nevada contributed as its share of obligation to this country, the national security of this country for 20 years or decades, it is less than 4 tons. We are going to be sending 77,000 tons of the most deadly, toxic substance known to man to be stored in the State of Nevada for thousands of years, and we have yet to approve the science that says that Yucca Mountain is either qualified or suitable to store this nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. We have talked about the science. We have talked about the dangers. We have talked about the continual expenditure of billions of dollars trying to make that square peg fit a round hole. Mr. Speaker, it is not going to happen. There is no way that the geology of Yucca Mountain will ever meet the requirements of the law that was passed in 1982 and amended in 1987. We have taken our science and shown that Yucca Mountain is not suitable. They are required now to have engineered barriers just so they can make the excuse, well, if the geology does not work, we will engineer it to be safe. If that is the case, they can engineer it to be safe in any place in this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, and urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 87.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I come to this body to speak on the floor to make one final plea that we consider a safer, more cost-effective solution to the disposal of our Nation's high level nuclear waste than simply burying it in a hole in the high desert mountains in the State of Nevada, my home district. Just last year, I urged Members and the public to review a GAO report which called the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain project ``a failed scientific process.'' The GAO's independent, highly critical study of the Yucca Mountain project should be enough to shine the light even through the thickest nuclear industry smoke screen. And now, almost 5.5 years after I brought this issue to our attention, I implore this body and the DOE to abandon this misguided Yucca Mountain project. Consider the following: Is Yucca Mountain suitable for storage? Just listen to the proponents of the Yucca Mountain project. Time and again they will tell us the number of years and the billions of dollars that they have spent by this government to move this process forward is suitable for making this decision. We will hear it throughout today's debate, and we have heard it throughout today's debate. But this argument is flawed, as is the DOE policy. Spend all we want, we cannot make a volcanic, seismically active mountain geologically sound. Whether it is $8 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion, $100 billion, there will be earthquakes, water will percolate through the mountain, and corrosion of these casks will occur. Where is our sense of fiscal discipline in this body? Where is our restraint? Why are we willing to just throw our arms up in the air and conclude, well, we have already spent billions of dollars, so I guess we should just proceed? Where are my colleagues who are advocates for States' rights, local control and fiscal discipline? Nevada is currently fighting the DOE in Federal court to protect our water rights. That may not mean much to Members east of the Mississippi, but out West, water is very hard to come by. For local control, what are our governors going to do the first day rigs and railcars start traveling through Members' States carrying thousands of tons of high level nuclear waste? I think I have a pretty good idea. Ask the governor of the State of South Carolina. The DOE and the nuclear industry tells us that bringing up accidents is simply a scare tactic. But wait, it was not Nevada, it was the DOE that said we should expect somewhere around 400 accidents during the 38 years of transportation that this waste must cross America. We did not bring it up. Nevada did not bring it up. We did not arbitrarily come up with those numbers; the DOE did. What will a State trooper, an off-duty fireman, an EMT do when they are required to be the first to respond to a nuclear waste accident? Before Members vote today, perhaps they should talk to them. Ask them, and they will probably say they do not know because nobody is trained or prepared to deal with an accident on a highway dealing with this high level nuclear waste. The DOE begs us to consider the fact that they have safely transported waste in the past without incident. Well, maybe there have been no major accidents where radioactive materials were released, at least not yet. But add up every single shipment of waste thus far, and we do not even come up to within 1 percent of the total amount of waste shipments that will be put on our streets, near our homes and communities, and probably through the communities of our constituents in the years to come. If the waste is not coming through our population centers by truck, it will come by train. Let me remind Members of some of the recent stories involving train accidents around this country. We can see Los Angeles Times, 260 People Injured, 2 Dead; Baltimore, Toxic Cargo Shuts the City Down, Firefighters Stymied, on and on the stories continue. I ask Members to look at page A8 in today's Los Angeles Times which indicates that storage of waste at Yucca Mountain is not safe. It will leak. What does this policy that we have before us today as a Nation say? It would lead us to believe that the world has no innovation and no technology, and that we do not have scientific and medical achievements capable of dealing with nuclear waste. We find ourselves cemented by a DOE policy that tells us the best our Nation can do or that our Nation has to offer for high level nuclear waste storage is simply to dig a hole and bury it in the ground and walk away. This, while nations across the world are advancing technologies in processing and recycling this waste. We have the ability in this country to reduce the amount of waste, to lower its toxicity, to eliminate plutonium, and make the waste completely nonproliferative, but not with this current policy. All we want to do, according to this policy, is hollow out a mountain, fill it with waste and walk away. I am totally unimpressed. Another question. What problem do we solve by moving forward with the Yucca Mountain project? The answer, none. As a matter of fact, we create one. If we look at this chart, there are 131 locations of nuclear waste around this country. Moving forward when we create Yucca Mountain with this policy, what are we going to have? We are going to have 132 sites in this country where nuclear waste is stored, one additional one in southern Nevada. That is right. Look at this map. There are 132 sites for nuclear waste. We do not, we will not, we cannot remove the waste from all of these States. Mr. Speaker, spent fuel rods have by requirement to sit in a cooling pond for a minimum of 5 years before they can be shipped. The DOE myth is that we are relieving these reactors of on-site storage, and we are somehow preventing the possibility of a terrorist attack on one of these 131 sites. That logic does not fly. All we are doing is going from 131 project sites to 132. Mr. Speaker, let us assume for a moment that there would be no accidents, no train derailments, no tracks to jackknife over a bridge or some waterway, not one accident to occur in 38 years. Not likely, but we will pretend, anyway, that it may happen. What about the terrorists? Are we not currently preparing ourselves to spend billions of dollars on homeland defense? Are we not briefed every day by Federal officials as to the potential threats we face within our borders? Americans are getting a civics lesson every day in what a credible threat means. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence spoke out about terrorist threats within the United States. He said the terrorists are here in high numbers and ready and capable of attacking the United States. That begs the question, what next? What exactly is the al Qaeda craving next? According to CIA Director George Tenet, it is a low tech nuclear device or what has been deemed a dirty bomb. I quote from Mr. Tenet: ``We believe that bin Laden was seeking to acquire or develop a nuclear device. Al Qaeda may be pursuing a radioactive dispersal device, what some call a dirty bomb.'' Just last month CNN reported that Abu Zubaydah, the most senior al Qaeda leader in the United States, has told investigators that terrorists were producing a radiological weapon, a dirty bomb, and know how to use it. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is placing tens of thousands of dirty bombs on our roads and railways through 703 counties in 44 States. This map shows where the routes are going to go through the various States. If a Member's State is not one of the three, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, then that Member's State is going to be affected by the transportation of nuclear waste. There are terrorists in this country; and tragically, we have witnessed the amount of destruction they are willing to bring. Yet we are to believe that every one of these nuclear shipments will be safe for the next 4 decades, that they will be completely safe from any potential foreign or domestic terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope so. After all, one does not have to be a trained terrorist to jump a train carrying high level nuclear waste. Just a few weeks ago a train carrying high level nuclear waste was boarded by one or two escaped inmates from a North Carolina prison who were trying to escape from an inmate work program. Well, imagine if these train jumpers happen to be more than common day criminals trying to evade their captors. What if they were terrorists and had explosives with them? Yet even though this did occur and it can and will occur again, we are charged with this bill's proponents of presenting nothing but scare tactics. Just as the DOE cannot spend Yucca Mountain into making it geologically sound, the nuclear energy industry cannot spin the facts into a myth. The nuclear power industry has contributed $13.8 million to Federal candidates during the 2000 election cycle. They have spent $25 million in just 1 year lobbying Congress on this issue, although many minds may not change, nor will the facts. According to DOE, on- site dry cask storage can continue for the next 100 years. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act demands that the Yucca Mountain be deemed geologically suitable. As someone who holds a master's degree in geology, let me say that it is not, it cannot, and it never will be geologically suitable as required by the act, no matter how many billions we try to put into it. If Members do not take my word for it or Nevada's word for it, take their word for it and consider what the other side has said. The DOE, the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Congressional Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have all said that the technical basis for projecting the long-term performance and the project's base case repository design has critical weaknesses. They further said that the DOE has not presented a clear and persuasive rationale for going forward with the site recommendation. We have numerous statements that support this concept about the weakness of their case. Mr. Speaker, we can and we could do much better than this. We can and we should offer a more viable and safe and cost efficient solution to this problem. We can and we should continue to support nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. But you do not need one just to have the other. Yucca Mountain is not safe. I, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion would say that many of my colleagues have never looked their constituents in the eye on this issue. But I represent the dairy farmer in the Armagosa Valley that is near Yucca Mountain, and I represent the alfalfa farmers that are there as well. They are watching today. I want them to know that we are fighting for them against this Yucca Mountain project. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, passage of H.J. Res. 87 will undoubtedly put a process in place that will exceed the $58 million threshold outlined in section 425 of the act. Instead of looking at what the CBO score tells us, let us look at what it does not tell us. What the CBO is unable to tell us is how much it will cost our local community to implement the Nuclear Waste Management Act, as far as preparing our State and local governments for the enormous cost of safety monitoring these tens of thousands of high level nuclear waste shipments that are going to occur throughout our community. Madam Speaker, by the CBO's inability to score the total cost of this project, again a project receives a green light upon passage of the legislation currently before us, there might as well not even be a CBO score. The chairman of the committee has fulfilled his obligation to publish a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 87; however, the CBO cost only gives the House the recommended 5-year cost projection. As we know, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, shipments of high level nuclear waste to Nevada will not even begin until the year 2010, about 8 years from now. With the CBO unable to give a cost estimate on the Yucca Mountain project's total price tag, passage of H.J. Res. 87 provides the Federal government a blank check to proceed with this project. In the end, the Federal Government will demand that our State and local governments spend billions of dollars over the next four decades to prepare for those shipments that will traverse their respective States and districts. Neither the Department of Energy nor Congress has anticipated or provided for the massive costs that will be incurred by States and local governments if we pass this legislation. The paltry $17 million budgeted by the Department of Energy in its fiscal year 2003 budget will not come close to covering these costs. States and local governments will be left with billions of dollars in unfunded expenses which would not be incurred except for the Federal high level radioactive waste program. Some may counter this argument by saying that we can recommend on the Nuclear Waste Fund, established by Congress, to pay for the cost of Yucca Mountain. Well, consider this argument: Current estimates put the Nuclear Waste Fund at about $17 billion. That balance pales in the comparison to the total construction and compliance costs at Yucca Mountain of almost $60 billion. What is more, the nuclear power industry faces an uncertain economic future. Let me point out a few of the problems facing the industry. The industry is supposed to be responsible for paying the costs associated with the nuclear waste disposal. No nuclear power plants have been built since 1978. More than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. The nuclear power industry's troubles include nuclear high power plant construction costs, relatively low costs for competing fuel, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, as well as regulatory compliance costs. Electric utility restructuring, which is currently under way in several States, could also increase the competition faced by existing nuclear plants. High operating costs have resulted during the past decades in the shutdown of nearly 20 U.S. commercial reactors before the completion of their 40-year license operating period. Madam Speaker, the viability of the Nuclear Waste Fund is directly related to the continued viability of the nuclear utility industry. Taxpayers are not supposed to fund the program. The program is supposed to be funded by the nuclear energy industry and the ratepayers who purchase and benefit from their electricity. The price tag of this project will be tremendous. Not in the next 5 years, as outlined by the CBO score, but in 8 years, and the subsequent 4 decades beyond that. Madam Speaker, 8 years from now the Department of Energy will begin filling your roads and highways and railways with high level nuclear waste. The cost to even begin preparing our first responders will be staggering, let alone the cost of any clean-up associated with one of 400 accidents the Department of Energy tells us that we are to prepare for when they begin these shipments. I ask that delegates call their State governors and ask does room exist in their budget to meet these needs and these expensive costs? Ask your local county commissioners can they afford the increased costs of protecting these shipments? Ask city council members in your district will they have room to budget in their budget for these increased costs? Ask your local fire fighters, police officers, State troopers, your emergency response teams, EMTs and haz-mat crews, will they be able to afford such costs? Again, the DOE tells us that accidents happen. This is not spilled milk. An accident involving shipments of high level nuclear waste requires more than a mop and bucket of water to clean up. Imagine the cost of the training just to prepare for a potential response to one of these accidents. Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 87 is an unfunded mandate. The CBO cannot tell us whether or not carrying out the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by passing this resolution will exceed the $58 million threshold. And because CBO cannot give us this information, we must assume that the threshold can and will be exceeded. Now some tell us not to worry, that DOE and Congress will ensure the necessary funding will be provided at the right time. If this is the case, Madam Speaker, where are we going to get the money? What programs will have to be cut to pay for this irresponsible policy? Will we cut the Department of Defense budget as we carry out this long, protracted war against terrorism? Will we cut out Medicare or any possibility of implementing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors? Or will we allow ourselves to drive the Social Security trust fund at the same time our baby boomer generation sits on the brink of retirement? Assuming the DOE begins shipment in 2010 as planned, Congress would have to budget $3.6 billion per year beginning with this year's budget in order to provide adequate funding for States. The fact is, Madam Speaker, as with every other issue we debate in this body, the money has to come from somewhere and somewhere always leads to the taxpayers in this great country. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfunded mandate and support the point of order I just made. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity. Certainly I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his words are very serious to me. I want the gentleman to know that we take this debate very seriously. I appreciate the gentleman's concern and his remarks, and certainly no offense was taken.

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 87. Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $58 million against State and local governments or when the committee chairman does not publish, prior to floor consideration, a CBO cost mandate of any unfunded mandate in excess of $58 million against State and local entities. H.J. Res. 87 will in effect set the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended in 1987 into action. The bill reads in part, ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that there hereby is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada for a repository.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, passage of this resolution will green- light the Yucca Mountain project, thus allowing for shipment of high level nuclear waste beginning in the year 2010 and continuing for the next 38 years. Thus, passage of H.J. Res. 87 clearly places an unfunded mandate on our taxpayers.

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will remind my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, that shipments will not begin until 8 years from today, not the 5 years as recommended in the CBO score. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today we will be deciding whether to ship high-level nuclear waste, one of the most dangerous and deadly substances known to man, across this great country by and through our roads and neighborhoods and schools and parkways. Mr. Speaker, today we must reject this dangerous plan. Whatever Members believe, let us look at some of the startling facts. According to the Department of Transportation itself, there have been over 11,000 train accidents in the past 5 years. It is estimated that at least one train accident occurs every 24 hours. Since 1998, 3,800 people have lost their lives and more than 45,000 people have been injured in train accidents in the United States alone. Just imagine how many more people would die or could have been injured had these trains been carrying high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, it takes only one antitank missile or one terrorist act to cause a catastrophic nuclear disaster, but today we can prevent that disaster. We can oppose House Joint Resolution 87 and stop the Yucca Mountain project now before we endanger the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the issue of Yucca Mountain is safety. H.G. Wells once said that human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. Mr. Speaker, nothing in the history of mankind has withstood the test of 10,000 years. What was the state-of-the-art technology and engineered as safe as late as 1970, has proven today 30 years later, not to be a safe solution. Let us not allow short-term safety issues to become serious long-term problems hundreds of years from now. The Department of Energy cannot assure the safety and suitability of Yucca Mountain, not even 10 years from now; and that is why they have turned to basing their proposal on engineered barriers, instead of suitability of the site. Yucca Mountain will not solve our nuclear waste problem; it just creates one additional, yet unsuitable, repository. And our current sites will only have 9 percent less waste than they do today. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to work toward a real solution based on 21st century technology, and reject H.J. Res. 87 tomorrow.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, on May 4-6, 2002 more than 1200 students from across the United States visited Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People. . . The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that the class from Incline High School from Incline Village represented the State of Nevada in this national event. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People. . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals of our government in the aftermath of September 11th. These ideas identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for our next generation to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) showed that students enrolled in the We the People. . . program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Further, in a voting and civic participation survey of program alumni, 82% reported voting in the November 2000 election. In contrast, the National Election Studies reported a 48% turnout in the November 2000 election among Americans aged 18-30. This provides ample evidence that when students gain valuable knowledge about fundamental American values, they are more likely to participate in political life. The class from Incline High School diligently conducted research and prepared for their participation in the national competition. I commend these young ``constitutional experts'' on their work for and commitment to the We the People. . . national finals. They represent the future leaders of our nation.