Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of S. 1287. Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually against State or local governments, or when the committee chairman does not publish, prior to floor consideration, a CBO cost estimate of any unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually for State and local entities or in excess of $100 million annually for the private sector. Section 104 of S. 1287 contains violations of section 425 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Therefore, I make a point of order against consideration of this act.

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time, and I thank also my other colleague and friend from Michigan for labeling this bill just exactly what it is: A turkey. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bipartisan bill. It is important that the House of Representatives realize the disastrous impacts S. 1287 would have on the State of Nevada. The issue before us is whether this bill is necessary and whether it is an erroneous waste of time since the Senate has already voted and received enough votes to sustain a promised veto by President Clinton. This body should not allow short-term political pressure to become serious long-term health and safety problems hundreds of years from now. As Nevadans, we believe that standards based on sound science, along with the protection and welfare of this Nation's citizens, should become our fundamental threshold when we debate this bill today. Senate bill 1287 will mandate upon the State of Nevada and this Nation the transportation of high-level nuclear waste on a scale unprecedented in history while failing to address the issues of safety and the general well-being of its citizens. The deadliest material ever created, Madam Speaker, would hit the Nation's roads and rails, bringing with it the risk of transportation accidents with the most lethal and toxic proportions. Many in this chamber have fallen under the false pretense that we have been shipping nuclear waste all along and, if we have done it before, we can do it again. This is a dead wrong assumption. Between 1964 and 1997, there were only 2,913 shipments of used nuclear fuel, which I would like to point out had its share of accidents. Senate bill 1287 would mandate that over 100,000 shipments of high-level nuclear waste over the next 30 years be sent to Nevada. This is a 4,350 percent increase in just the number of shipments alone. To understand the seriousness of the accidents, consider an analysis done by the Department of Energy on the repercussions of a rural transportation accident. The study, part of a 1986 environmental assessment for Yucca Mountain, warns that a serious accident would contaminate 42 square miles and require 462 days to clean up at a cost to the American taxpayer of $620 million. That was from the Department of Energy. Does it make sense for anyone to take these unnecessary chances, especially if the accident happened in their district? Realize that over 50 million people live within one mile of the transportation corridors selected for this nuclear material, and these will be our voters and our constituents. Not surprisingly, Senate bill 1287 fails to use best available science when developing shipping casks. The bill defies logic and does not even require real full-scale testing of nuclear waste shipping containers. So let us get this straight. There will be a 4,350 percent increase in deadly nuclear waste shipments, it will cost $620 million to clean up an accident, and the bill does not even require full-scale testing of the nuclear shipping containers. For many years, I, and many other Members who oppose this legislation, have urged the debate to be governed by two principles: First, that all decisions with regard to storage of dangerous high- level nuclear waste be made according to science, not politics; and, second, that the health and safety of Americans always be paramount in our concern. Unfortunately, 1287 blatantly ignores these two principles. It includes provisions that shift responsibility for developing standards for acceptable levels of human radiation exposure from the Environmental Protection Agency, which has lawful jurisdiction over setting such standards, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has virtually no experience in either protecting the civilian population from health risks or in determining the impact of radiation on natural resources, such as groundwater. In fact, NRC's proposed Yucca Mountain standards include no radiation standards for groundwater contamination, even though nearby communities rely heavily on groundwater for their drinking water supply. Senate bill 1287 also mandates an unrealistic and unnecessary timetable for shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The bill also proposes a costly temporary storage facility, which is conveniently called in the bill a backup storage facility, and will be in place well before science dictates whether or not Yucca Mountain should be licensed as a repository. Moreover, Madam Speaker, the bill's language is crafted to protect the nuclear industry from angry customers because it essentially caps the rate charged to utility customers who use nuclear electricity. Unfortunately, there is not enough money generated by the nuclear electric customers to finance the nuclear waste trust fund, which was created to ship the waste and construct, operate and maintain a high- level nuclear repository for 10,000 years. Therefore, the hardworking American taxpayer will soon be footing the bill for this multibillion dollar bill. Again I say to all my colleagues, these are our constituents. As we know, there are ongoing studies at Yucca Mountain to determine if it is suitable to become a permanent repository. All of these studies work within certain parameters to determine issues such as safety. Senate bill 1287 ignores these parameters and deletes the metric ton limit currently placed on Yucca Mountain. This last-minute change would disqualify the ongoing scientific studies at the site and would be similar to placing a dump truck load of sand into a wheelbarrow. Finally, let us look at the facts and the Earth science surrounding Yucca Mountain. In the last 20 to 30 years, there have been over 634 earthquakes, and 13 of those earthquakes have occurred in the last 30 days. We could not site, license or construct a nuclear power plant on the site where this nuclear waste facility is to be constructed. It is not safe. And I ask my friends and colleagues in this body to vote against this untimely and unfortunate measure.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1287 contains violations of section 425 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. More specifically, S. 1287 would effectively stop the flow of revenue into the Nuclear Waste Fund. This is the fund that is responsible for costs associated with the shipment, storage and disposal of commercially generated nuclear waste. Loss of this revenue would leave a multibillion dollar funding gap that must be filled. Loss of this revenue would impose a multibillion dollar unfunded Federal mandate on the American taxpayer. The May 1995, Department of Energy-sponsored Independent Management and Financial Review concluded, ``The Nuclear Waste Fund is currently defined as inadequate.'' The review panel noted that the Nuclear Waste Fund was between $4 billion and $8 billion underfunded for a single regulatory program, and between $12 billion and $15 billion underfunded for a two-repository program. S. 1287 shifts the burden of paying the extra costs of a nuclear waste repository program to the American taxpayer by freezing the current mill fee that pays money into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Although this aspect of S. 1287 appeals to the nuclear utilities, it is difficult to justify it to the American taxpayer. Let us take a quick review of the situation at hand. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 called for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep underground repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act set forth two major provisions. First, it established an office in the Department of Energy to develop such a repository; and, secondly, now pay special attention to this, it required the program's civilian costs to be covered by a fee on nuclear-generated electricity. So here is the situation. The nuclear power industry goes to the Federal Government and says they need help with their nuclear waste. So the nuclear power industry makes a deal in which the Federal Government becomes responsible for transporting, storing, and disposing of nuclear waste. Okay. But who is going to pay for it? The deal essentially says that they, the nuclear power industry, are responsible for picking up the tab. The sad part about this rosy finding and scenario is that, ultimately, your constituents, our constituents, the American taxpayers, will actually be responsible for picking up the tab. Let me make a quick review of the salient facts associated with the costs of this nuclear waste disposal program. An independent cost assessment of the Nation's high-level nuclear waste program conducted by the Planning Information Corporation, the Thompson Professional Group, and the Decision Research Institute, estimates total system costs at $53.9 billion for fiscal year 1996, about 54.1 percent greater than DOE's estimate in September of 1995. About $38.5 billion are costs attributable to the disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel, for which, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to be fully recovered from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Full recovery, Mr. Speaker, of $38.5 billion from the Nuclear Waste Fund, is unlikely. Current estimates put the Nuclear Waste Fund at only $8.9 billion. This balance pales in comparison to the total system costs of almost $54 billion. Those are in 1996 fiscal year dollars. What is more, the nuclear power industry, the industry, remember, that made the deal with the Federal Government to pay for the nuclear waste disposal program, faces an uncertain economic future. Let me point out just a few of the problems facing this industry, the industry that is supposed to be responsible for paying the costs associated with nuclear waste disposal. No nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978. More than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction. In fact, the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar 1 reactor ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996 was the last U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include a slowdown in the rate of growth of electricity demand, high nuclear power plant construction costs, relatively low costs for competing fuel, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal and regulatory compliance costs. Even more of an immediate concern to the nuclear power industry is the outlook for existing nuclear reactors in a deregulated electrical market. Electric utility restructuring, which is currently underway in several States, could increase the competition faced by existing nuclear plants. High operating costs and the need for costly improvements and equipment replacement has resulted during the past decade in the permanent shutdown of 11 U.S. commercial reactors before the completion of their 40-year license operating period. Mr. Speaker, the viability of the Nuclear Waste Fund is directly related to the continued viability of the nuclear utility industry. It seems that the economic outlook for both is suspect at best. The vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Garrish, affirmed the dire strait of fiscal affairs in the Nuclear Waste Fund, the fund that is supposed to pay for the nuclear waste disposal program, is Yucca Mountain. Mr. Garrish stated, ``The Nuclear Waste Fund was established in 1982 by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That legislation imposed a 1 mill per kilowatt-hour fee on customers who use electricity generated by nuclear power. In return for paying this user fee to the Nuclear Waste Fund, the Federal Government was made responsible by law for the transport, storage and disposal of all commercially generated used nuclear fuel.'' Please note that Mr. Garrish does not say the Federal Government is responsible for paying for the transport and storage or disposal of their nuclear waste, nor does he say that the American taxpayer is responsible for paying for the transport, storage, and disposal of nuclear waste. That is because he is correct. The American taxpayer is 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. Let us consider this in order, Mr. Speaker, and review the facts. The total construction costs and operating costs for a repository at Yucca Mountain are close to $54 billion and growing. The nuclear power industry is in dire straits. They are plagued with a slowdown in the rate of growth of electrical demand, high nuclear power plant construction costs, relatively low costs for competing fuels, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal and a regulatory compliance cost; and we know that the money being paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund is not used for its intended purpose. What is more, the bill, S. 1287, essentially freezes the mill fee, the mechanism to fund the Nuclear Waste Fund, thus effectively stopping the flow of revenue into the fund. S. 1287 essentially allows the nuclear utilities to be off the hook and sticks the American taxpayer with a burden of paying this $54 billion bill. Let us get this correct: we are supposed to believe that the American people, our constituents, are supposed to believe that the Nuclear Waste Fund, paid into by the industry, with an uncertain fiscal future, and whose revenue inflows will effectively be frozen by the passage of S. 1287, is supposed to pay for the total construction and the operating costs of Yucca Mountain? I do not think so. So the Nuclear Waste Fund by itself, Mr. Speaker, is doomed, and there will be no money for the Nuclear Waste Fund coming in the future if the ratepayers are closed out of paying for this with a mill fee, as stated in S. 1287. The Nuclear Waste Fund will become an empty shell, devoid of money. It is pretty simple: you cannot use the money from a fund when there is no money here. So then, ultimately, the taxpayer is responsible for picking up the tab. Mr. Speaker, my objection to this is that this is an unfunded mandate, and the bill so states. It takes billions of dollars to construct and operate and maintain a high-level nuclear facility. The nuclear energy industry is responsible for providing this funding. The problem is that the industry is waning in its effectiveness to provide the billions of dollars needed to construct, operate, and maintain a facility in which their spent nuclear fuel will be stored. Sadly, the American taxpayer will be the ones who lose in the end. The point is crystal clear: S. 1287 shifts the burden of paying the extra costs of a nuclear repository program to the American taxpayer by freezing the current mill fee that pays for the nuclear waste fund. Once the fund is exhausted, the American taxpayers will be responsible for the multibillion dollar price tag. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, begin by thanking my colleague from Washington for the generous consideration of granting me the time to speak in opposition, and I must say strong opposition, to this closed rule. This is, first and foremost, a matter of fairness. Nevada has not had a voice in this issue, the issue of storing nuclear waste from other facilities, which, by the way, Nevada has never benefitted from any of the power generated. Secondly, we have never had a hearing on this bill, the Senate bill 1287, and, as a result, we have not had an opportunity to have input into this. This is a 1-hour debate today without the opportunity even to offer an amendment to this rule. The bill itself is fatally flawed. It creates an interim storage facility, Mr. Speaker, which would, in and of itself, require early shipment of nuclear waste to the State without even so much as putting a roof over the material that is going to be stored there. And there is an inadequacy in terms of the fee that is being charged to pay for the storage of that nuclear waste down the road. This is material that has a half-life of 10,000 years. And all of these nuclear facilities which are supposed to pay for this, after they are closed they will not be able to have additional funding and, therefore, the taxpayer will be required to pick up this tab. Transportation across America is going to occur. We are going to be transporting this material through some of America's most natural wonders. We need an amendment that would have prohibited shipping it past our national conservation areas, through our parks and our national historic preservation areas as well. This is an issue of States' rights, Mr. Speaker, one which requires a governor's consent. It is up to a governor to help protect the people of his State. This bill fails to do that. Also, Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of the fifth amendment private property rights. A recent court ruling in New Mexico, which held that an individual whose property was devalued simply by the passage of nuclear waste past his property, cost that agency nearly $800,000 in devaluation. This is an issue if we transport this material across America. The taxpayers of this country are going to pick up an enormous tab for the devaluation under the fifth amendment of individual property rights. Let me also address the issue of an emergency response. This bill does not provide for those States along the corridor where this material is to be transported to have emergency response teams available to them. If there is an accident, first responders would be the local fire, the local police, and State officers. We must ensure that they have adequate funding and an adequately certified response team to deal with this. This bill fails to address that. We needed an amendment to do that. This bill fails to protect our children. Because, as I said earlier, passage of this material along the corridors of transportation will, by its very nature, take it near our schools and through school zones, therefore endangering the lives of many of our children to needless exposure to radiation. One of these accidents, of course, could cause the rupture of these casks that house this material as it is being transported. There is no full-scale testing provided in this bill. There needs to be an amendment, and we were denied this amendment, because the cask testing does not meet full-scale testing standards today. Let me talk about one of the other issues that this bill does. It removes the limitation on the total amount of nuclear waste that can be stored in Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, all of the scientific studies have been premised on the idea that approximately 77,000 tons of this material will be stored in Nevada. This bill strips the cap off of that. That means that all of those studies, those scientific studies that were designed to assure the safety of the storage of this material, are, in effect, inadequate and do not represent the safety designs and standards for the storage of such material. This bill also allows for a death sentence to those people who are going to work in this area. There is a disagreement between the EPA and the NRC with regard to the radiation standards. The EPA has historically assessed standards to other nuclear waste facilities of 15 millirems and four millirems for groundwater supply. This bill lets the NRC engage in a discussion which would raise the level of that exposure, that millirem exposure to those people working in the area or just in the process of being nearby the storage, to something at the level of 25 millirems and has no identified groundwater standards. These are unacceptable standards and we must ensure that if we are going to be exposed to this, then we should have the same standards as others. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. 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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that nuclear waste is one of the most dangerous and deadly substances known to man. Yet before us today is Senate bill 1287, a bill which calls for the transportation of this deadly material across 43 States, near your neighborhoods, past your homes and school yards. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that transporting the unprecedented amount of nuclear waste as required in Senate bill 1287 endangers our environment and the lives of millions of Americans living across those 43 States. The Department of Energy estimates that a rail accident involving a shipment of nuclear waste would result in the radioactive contamination of a 42-square mile area. Mr. Speaker, a cleanup of this environmental disaster would cost the taxpayers $620 million and require 460 days just to complete, millions of dollars, hundreds of days spent cleaning up a catastrophe that we can prevent today by voting no on Senate bill 1287. Protect the lives of your constituents and our precious environment. Vote no on Senate bill 1287.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this week we will have an opportunity to once again protect our Nation, our citizens, and our environment by voting no on S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. If passed, Mr. Speaker, S. 1287 will launch the largest nuclear waste shipping program in human history. A no vote will send a clear message that we do not support transporting the world's deadliest material, nuclear waste, through our Nation's cities, near our children's schools, and through our rural communities. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation reported that in a 10- year period there were almost 100,000 transportation accidents releasing hazardous materials; 100,000. Just imagine the consequences of a transport accident involving nuclear fuel containing massive amounts of radioactivity occurring as it travels through the most congested cities of 43 States. Mr. Speaker, let us not put millions of our Americans or our environment at risk. Vote no on S. 1287. I yield back S. 1287, a plan to transport nuclear waste that only serves to jeopardize the health and the welfare of every American.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the great honor and privilege of appearing before the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policies to share with them my thoughts on the historical legacy of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. And yet perhaps a greater honor to me was listening to the eloquent words of Caspar Weinberger, Jeane Kilpatrick, Peggy Noonan, and Martin Anderson. These close friends and trusted colleagues of the Reagans reflected on the dedication of our 40th President and his wife Nancy to our great Nation. Even the former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, submitted a letter to the subcommittee expressing his deep respect for former President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 3591, a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Currently, this bill has approximately 280 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan effort to bestow a fitting tribute on the Reagans in recognition to their dedication and commitment to public service and to our country. I encourage all of my colleagues to become cosponsors of H.R. 3591 and join me in saying ``thank you'' to the Reagans for dedicating so much of their lives to the people of the United States.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, some startling news: Last month the Commerce Department announced that the U.S. trade deficit surged to an all-time high in 1999. The trade deficit rose over 65 percent from 1998, over 65 percent. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy is being shipped overseas and the American workers are being left behind unemployed and unable to reach the American dream. And in spite of this indisputable fact, the Clinton administration continues to encourage the expansion of current free trade policy, such as NAFTA, to other nations around the world. Sadly, the President has also failed to mention another fact that the Commerce Department also announced, and that is that the United States experienced record trade deficits with its NAFTA trade partners last year, as well. Seems obvious to me and many of my colleagues here that NAFTA and similar trade policies have caused more harm than good for our economy and for the American workers. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back such ill-conceived trade policies that seem to only trade away American jobs for higher trade deficits.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, soon this august body will be debating the trade status of the United States with the People's Republic of China. We will begin discussing whether or not the U.S. should expand its trade relationships with a nation that has, one, stolen top secret nuclear technology from the United States and its laboratories; two, continues to be a known violator of human rights; and three, has threatened the United States with nuclear war. Just a couple of weeks ago, China threatened to fire long-range nuclear missiles at the United States if we defend Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, how can we trust a nation that has stolen U.S. technology and secrets, oppressed its own people, and now threatens the United States with nuclear war? The actions of China appear no different from those of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We did not consider an open trade policy with the USSR then, and we should not consider granting normal trade relationships with China today. I yield back the dangerous Clinton trade policies which force Americans to give to a nation that is all ready and willing to launch a nuclear attack on us.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters of support for H.R. 1695, the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act. Airports Council International, Washington, DC, March 7, 2000. Dear Member of Congress: Airports Council International- North America urges your strong support of H.R. 1695, the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act. This legislation would enable the Clark County, Nevada Department of Aviation to buy 6,500 of federal land for a new airport to serve Las Vegas. The number of air passengers traveling in the United States in expected to increase from less than 700 million to over a billion in just a few short years. We need to add airport capacity across the nation to accommodate this growth. Air traffic at Las Vegas McCarran International airport grew 11 percent last year alone, creating the prospect of significant future delays if new runway and terminal facilities are not built. Las Vegas is currently the tenth busiest airport in the nation with connections to over 50 other cities. Delays in Las Vegas will mean delays in other cities as well. The FAA Reauthorization package agreed to by the conferees this week provides airports with much of the funding they require to meet tomorrow's needs. In order for this important work to be done, airports such as Las Vegas must be able to overcome the environmental opposition to their expansion projects. Existing airports all across the nation are facing congestion in terminals and on runways. New airport capacity is needed today. We urge you to support H.R. 1695. Sincerely, Jeffrey Goodell, Vice President, Government Affairs.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, there is some troubling news about our educational system which seems to be heading in the wrong direction. A recent survey of college students showed that 45 percent of those college students would be denied U.S. citizenship because they could not correctly answer at least seven out of ten basic American history questions. Mr. Speaker, foreigners know more about U.S. history and they know that history better than our own children. The poll showed that 56 percent of students could not place in order of occurrence the U.S. invasion of Normandy, the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the fall of the Berlin Wall. But 94 percent knew that Leonardo DiCaprio was the lead actor in ``Titanic.'' Mr. Speaker, Federal spending on education is at an all-time high; and yet, 40 percent of our Nation's fourth graders fall below the basic level of reading achievement. It is obvious that more money on failing programs is not the answer. We need to enact real educational reform that give parents and teachers the resources they need to educate our children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back all the Federal bureaucracy that is preventing our children from learning U.S. history.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1695.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. 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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we have all experienced the loss of a loved one. It is a time when family and friends come together to console each other in an effort to ease the sorrow. Unfortunately, it is also a time when the callous Federal tax collector comes knocking. Today when someone dies, the Federal Government assesses a tax of up to 55 percent on the value of their estate. As a result, approximately 70 percent of family-owned businesses and small farms are not passed on to the next generation, another loss that the grieving family and American society as a whole must endure. But today, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to ease this unfair burden. The Wage and Employment Growth Act reduces the top estate tax from 55 percent down to 50 by 2002 and will further reduce all rates by 1 percent in the years 2003 and 2004. Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the American public believes the death tax is unfair and should be repealed. This will be one loss that the American family will not grieve for.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to take this moment to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), for having participated diligently with me in 3 years of effort to bring this bill to the floor here today. The efforts of the gentleman from Utah have been critical in terms of his work and his support to bridge those gaps between the questions that have been raised by the environmental and minority committees and bringing together all of those parties so that we have a workable resolution, a workable bill here today. The en bloc amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) offered here today, Mr. Chairman, is certainly one which I think allows for us to proceed with this bill and which will accomplish the goals that Las Vegas needs to have in the coming years with a new airport that will relieve the stress of congestion at the ninth busiest airport in America today. Mr. Chairman, as has already been mentioned, southern Nevada is the fastest growing area in the United States. Last year alone, in Las Vegas, there were more than 20,000 new homes constructed in the area. And because Nevada has somewhere between 87 and 92 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government, it makes expansion for many of our communities almost impossible. Fortunately, H.R. 1695 addresses the issue of smart growth and expansion and prepares Clark County, the home of Las Vegas, for the 21st century. As Las Vegas and southern Nevada continue to grow, a greater demand is put upon its airport and its facility. Currently, passengers traveling through the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport account for approximately 50 percent of the 31 million visitors who come to Las Vegas each and every year. As the Valley's resorts increasingly become desirable nationally and internationally as travel destinations, this percentage can be expected to climb, and an exhausting strain will be placed on McCarran Airport. That is why this legislation is so critically important to the future of the Las Vegas Valley, indeed the economy of our State. This is similar to the Dulles International Airport and the National Airport situation that we had existing right here in Washington, D.C. When Washington National, now Ronald Reagan National Airport, was becoming overcrowded and burdened by excess travel, there was a demand, 30 years ago, to increase its capacity by building a facility 30 miles to the west of here. That became known as Dulles International Airport. Today, the same problems, the same stress, are occurring in Las Vegas with the McCarran International Airport. Thirty miles to the Southwest will be the Ivanpah Airport as a reliever facility for McCarran's International Airport. The Ivanpah Airport will be located far enough away from McCarran's Airport and the Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas to be free from their flight restrictions, yet it has a close proximity to Interstate 15 and the Union Pacific Railroad which will provide an excellent union of intermodal and multimodal transportation opportunities. And lastly, it is surrounded by vacant Federal land, which gives Clark County an opportunity to continue their forward-thinking and responsible growth while protecting the airport from incompatible land uses. As McCarran reaches its physical capacity, expected to be in the year 2008, H.R. 1695 becomes a necessity to accommodate this county's favorable oasis in the desert and its future. There are those who rally against smart growth, forward-thinking planning, or even needed expansion. However, with the guidance and hard work, as I said earlier, of our colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and after working on this legislation for over 3 years, dedicating many hours to working out these compromises with the administration and environmental organizations, I believe we have finally found a common ground among all groups. This compromise is reflected, as I said earlier, in the manager's amendment. It allows greater say by the Secretary of the Interior on initial Environmental Impact Statement planning processes to take care of the administration's objections. The manager's amendment also takes care of a small technical problem associated with the revisionary clause; and, finally, it addresses a small concern brought up by the Committee on the Budget. However, if there are still concerns by some in this body, I would like to take the next few minutes, Mr. Chairman, to dispel these thoughts and concerns. Some have stated that H.R. 1695 makes the National Environmental Protection Agency process moot. Realize, however, that NEPA is a necessity. Before the Ivanpah site can be developed as an airport, the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Interior will be required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA. H.R. 1695 merely authorizes the sale of the land which otherwise could not be sold. Another question has been raised that others have stated that the bill obstructs policy comment required by FLPMA. There is only one reference to FLPMA in H.R. 1695, and it is not a waiver of public comment or environmental protections. Since the Ivanpah Airport project is to be Congressionally mandated, this subsection merely relieved the Secretary from the requirement that the project be accounted for in land inventories, maps, and land use plans. Not to mention there have been numerous local public meetings by the Clark County Commission concerning the Ivanpah Airport project. There is no significant local opposition to providing Southern Nevada a much needed second airport site. The bill is supported by the entire bipartisan Congressional delegation, the State, city, county and many local businesses and labor unions in Nevada. Another concern raised was that one of the most timely and important issues facing Clark County is growth and the protection of their natural resources. Mr. Chairman, this issue was weighed heavily when I crafted H.R. 1695 because of its proximity to the Mojave Preserve. However, the Ivanpah site is more than 16 miles from the Mojave Preserve and there is already a substantial community between the Mojave Preserve and the airport site known as Primm, Nevada. This community is located at the California State line, which includes three casinos and a large regional outlet mall. Because of this existing development, the BLM land management plan has already decided to sell over 5,000 acres of land along Interstate 15 for private development. Any further releases of land will require an amendment to the land management plan. If an airport is built at Ivanpah, a clear zone will be established around it which will preclude additional growth surrounding the site. A provision was added to H.R. 1695 which requires the Secretary of Transportation to work with the Secretary of the Interior to develop an air space management plan which precludes, except when safety requires, arrivals or departures over the Mojave Preserve. H.R. 1695 also mandates that the air space management plan determine the optimum flight approach and departure corridors. This was done in a proactive manner to minimize overflight impacts on the preserve. Another question that was raised was to ensure that the people of America receive fair compensation for their public lands. H.R. 1695 requires that the land be sold at fair market value. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the land will be sold at fair market value. This is not a give-away. The bill originally allowed the land to be purchased in phases and the new appraisals were required every 3 years. At a resources hearing, however, the County has indicated its intent to purchase the entire site as soon as possible; and the bill was amended in committee to require Clark County to buy the entire parcel for fair market value. It is important to ensure that our citizens not only realize the benefits of this new airport but are justly compensated for its use, for the use of our public lands. Another concern was that flights over or near the preserve will destroy the scenic vistas, natural quiet, and night skies. Mr. Chairman, let me say that, although H.R. 1695 precludes flights from the Ivanpah Airport over the Mojave National Preserve, the preserve is already heavily impacted by aircraft overflight. In fact, the preserve is actually located beneath one of the world's most concentrated air traffic corridors. Air traffic in and out of the Los Angeles basin airports, such as Los Angeles International, Palmdale Airport, John Wayne/Orange County Airport, Burbank, Ontario, and the Long Beach Airport, to name a few. Those airports require current overflights of the Mojave Preserve. Additionally, there are a number of military airfields in California which also impact the Mojave Preserve with their operations. To give my colleagues an idea, there are in excess of 400,000 operations on the airways over the Mojave Preserve at 6,000 feet or more above the preserve. Mr. Chairman, once again, there are 400,000 operations each year over the Mojave Preserve at 6,000 feet or more above the preserve. Additionally, there are 147,000 operations that fly over the Mojave Preserve annually at altitudes of 10,000 to 16,000 feet, which is comparable to the elevations of aircraft 16 miles from the Ivanpah location. This is the same distance between the Ivanpah Airport and the Mojave Preserve, which simply means that all aircraft arriving and departing at Ivanpah at a distance of 16 miles will be at least 10,000 feet and probably 16,000 feet or more above the preserve. Finally, concerns have been advanced about airport related light emissions impacting star gazing activities within the Mojave Preserve. Frankly, a small commercial service airport located between the two communities, such as Jean and Primm, Nevada, will contribute little, if any, to the local light emulating from the Ivanpah Valley. The last concern I would like to address this morning is the potential impact to the desert tortoise, mountain sheep, and their habitats. Clark County and I are extremely sensitive to the concerns regarding the potential impact of the airport on these desert animals. However, it was determined that the airport did not impact the critical habitat for the desert tortoise or areas of critical concern as set forth in the BLM Resource Management Plan. Remember that the site will also have to pass the rigorous standards of the National Environmental Policy Act process, as well as a possible section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. It is important to note that the United States Air Force Research Laboratory studied the effects of subsonic as well as supersonic aircraft noise on the desert tortoise. The report, dated May 1999, stated, ``There was no increase in blood lactate levels during or post exercise. The most extreme response to simulated subsonic aircraft noise was a typical reptilian defense response.'' The University of Arizona also evaluated the effects of simulated low-altitude F-16 jet aircraft noise on the behavior of captive mountain sheep. They concluded ``that when F-16 aircraft flew over the sheep, the noise levels created did not alter behavior or increase heart rates to the detriment of the population.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that these aircraft were flying along a ridge line at 125 meters, that is approximately 375 feet, above the ground, not the 6,000 feet or more that would be used by aircraft traveling to, arriving, or departing from the Ivanpah Airport and possibly over the Mojave Preserve. And if there were a safety issue requiring them to fly over, that would be a rare and abnormal occurrence that would only occur infrequently, at best. Finally, I would again like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his hard work once again and dedication in helping me see this project through over the last 3 years. As a freshman, and with the help of former Congressman John Ensign, the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) stood behind the people of Southern Nevada and enabled us to get to this point today. The State of Nevada owes the gentleman many thanks. Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone to support H.R. 1695, which is so very important to the Southern Nevada area and its future.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the en bloc amendments to H.R. 1695 as offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). First as we have already heard, there is a change to how the revenues generated from the sale of this property to Clark County, Nevada will be handled. This amendment simply states that those revenues were to be applied under section 4(f) of the act, 112 Statutes 2346, which provided for those proceeds to be generated in the same fashion that the southern Nevada land sales proceeds were developed. However, the Committee on the Budget decided that it needed to revise its treatment of the interest since that was not covered in the prior act. That interest amount will go to the general treasury on any funds that are generated from the sale of this property. Secondly, as the gentleman from Utah has already explained, the reentry revision finally recognizes that, if under the Secretary's determination that this project cannot go forward under the NEPA process and that there is a determination of a no-action alternative, this property then will be reverted back to the United States and title to the United States and the money which will be paid by Clark County shall be returned to Clark County for the reversionary interest. Lastly, of course, is the determination that prior to construction, facility owned lands will be required to address all of the National Environmental Policy Act requirements of 1969. To dispel any concerns, Mr. Chairman, that Members may have, I would like to share with them the environmental process that this airport will have to comply with. Under title 49, section 47101, subsection H, Consultation, let me say that to carry out the policy of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Secretary of Interior and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency about any project included in a project grant application involving the location of an airport or runway or any major runway extension that may have a significant effect on, one, natural resources including fish and wildlife; two, natural scenic and recreational assets; three, water and air quality; or, four, another factor affecting the environment. Under subsection C, the environmental requirements, the Secretary of Transportation may approve an application under this subchapter for an airport development project involving the location of an airport or runway or a major runway extension, A, only if the sponsor certifies to the secretary that (i) an opportunity for a public hearing was given to consider the economic, social and environmental impacts of the location and the location's consistency with the objectives of any planning that the community has carried out and (ii) the airport management board has voting representation from the communities in which the project is located or has advised the communities that they have the right to petition the secretary about a proposed project. Subsection B of that part says that only if the chief executive officer of the State in which the project will be located certifies in writing to the secretary that there is a reasonable assurance that the project will be located, designed, constructed and operated in compliance with the applicable air and water quality standards, except that the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall make the certification instead of the chief executive officer if, subsection (i) the State has not approved any applicable State or local standards, and (ii) the administrator has prescribed applicable standards. And subsection C finally says that if the application is found to have a significant adverse effect on natural resources including fish and wildlife, natural, scenic and recreational assets, water and air quality, or another factor affecting the environment, only after finding that no possible and prudent alternative to the project exists and that every reasonable step has been taken to minimize the adverse effect. Mr. Chairman, these are simply items that this project is going to have to comply with. There is no attempt in this bill to skirt or circumvent any of the environmental process. We think that this amendment brings forward and highlights those aspects. We certainly rise in support of the en bloc amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, safe, clean drinking water is something that many people often take for granted. Unfortunately, Nevadans may not have the luxury of assuming that their drinking water is safe or clean anymore. Recently, groundwater tests near the Nevada test site showed levels of radioactivity that were 25 times higher than allowed under the Federal safe drinking water standard. EPA studies have confirmed that due to the high volcanic activity in Nevada, radioactivity from deep within the earth's surface has surfaced and entered the groundwater supply. This is a real and serious environmental threat for Nevada, the Nation's third most seismically active State. Yet, Madam Speaker, there are some who still support the development of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which is located right in the middle of this volcanic activity. I for one will not support risking the health of millions of people and millions of children who merely want a cold, nonradioactive glass of water to drink. I yield back the dangerous and illogical plan to shift nuclear waste to Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, some recent disturbing news. Earlier this week, the General Accounting Office reported that the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, America's tax collecting agency, does not know how much money it is collecting or, worse yet, where the money is going. The GAO audit showed that the IRS frequently gives improper refunds and fails to promptly correct its own errors, costing the American taxpayers several billions of dollars every year. Mr. Speaker, if the IRS cannot keep track of its property, income, or budget, how can the American taxpayer feel confident that they are not getting ripped off? Even more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that the IRS is vulnerable to serious computer security problems, placing the financial and secure information of every American taxpayer in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the IRS clean up its act. The American taxpayer is required to be diligent in paying its taxes. The IRS must be diligent in its duty to the American people, or we should get rid of it. I yield back the unbelievable sloppy practices of our Nation's tax collector.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once said that when people ``are employed, they are best contented.'' Unfortunately, our Government right now is denying contentment to millions of seniors who want to work but cannot because of the Social Security earnings limit. Because of this earnings limit, seniors who work are being stripped of their Social Security benefits, the very Social Security benefits that they have spent their adult life earning and paying for with their own money. They are being penalized $2 for every $1 they earn if they choose to keep working. This is nonsense. It is wrong. And it must end. Fortunately, the Republicans here in the House are supporting a plan that would give relief to the millions of seniors who are burdened by the earnings limit. We understand that senior citizens who choose to work should not have to put their Social Security benefits at risk. Senior citizens can and do make lasting contributions in the workforce, and they should not be denied that right. The time has come to put an end to the Social Security earnings limit and tell our working citizens that we do not think they should be punished for having a job.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. 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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, in my heart few things are more sacred than the solemn promises that we have made to our veterans, because all of us today would not be able to enjoy the peace and prosperity we have without the sacrifices of our veterans. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposal completely fails our veterans yet again by breaking the health care promises made to them years ago. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that legislation has been introduced which corrects the administration's appalling oversight and restores adequate health care benefits that were promised to and earned by our veterans. The Keep Our Promises Act is a bipartisan bill which will finally fulfill the commitment we made to our military retirees. We need to protect the future of veterans' health care. We need to protect those who have paid the ultimate sacrifices for this country. I encourage our colleagues to support our Nation's veterans by supporting the Keep Our Promises Act. It is the least we can do, for all that they have done for us.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6. Mr. Speaker, Americans pay more in taxes today (as a percentage of the gross domestic product) than they have at any time since the Second World War. As disturbing as that fact may be, it is even more disturbing that according to the Congressional Research Service, over the next ten years, the average household will pay in taxes $5,307 more than government needs. The high tax burden on American families is simply unnecessary and too heavy. One of the most unfair taxes if the Marriage Penalty Tax. The marriage penalty forces two-earner, middle-income couples into higher tax brackets than if they filed as individuals. As a result, over 25 million American couples, including over 146,000 couples in the State of Nevada alone, pay an average of $1,400 more in federal taxes simply because they are married. Today, we have the opportunity to reduce this stifling tax burden and to correct a grave inequity in our current tax code. Today we can pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act will provide over the next decade $180 billion in marriage penalty relief to more than 25 million couples, including millions of America's middle class families which are hit hardest by this unfair tax burden. Taxes are a big reason why families feel so stressed. For example, the average family in my state had to work until May 14th last year just to pay their tax bill. That means Nevadans spend the first four months of last year working for the government. Many American families pay more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. Under these burdensome circumstances, how can a family possibly hope to save for retirement or college? American families need a break, and they deserve a tax code which doesn't punish them for choosing marriage, especially in this day and age when divorce rates are at an all time high. Mr. Speaker, the marriage tax penalty is simply unfair. As a Congress and as a nation, we should encourage marriage--not tax it. By providing marriage penalty tax relief, we can correct a gross inequity in the tax code and enable more of America's families to save money for their retirement, a computer, a home, or their children's education. Support the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act and give American families a real chance to make their dreams come true.