Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, being a leader means making some tough choices. This year, we have a historic opportunity to lock away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and put an end to the Democrats' practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. It means we have to make tough choices between saving Social Security or funding some other goal, like the President's desire to increase foreign aid by approximately 30 percent, taking it all out of Social Security. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we want to spend more on foreign aid or other programs. The question is whether we want to spend more on these programs if it comes out of the expense of Social Security. Mr. Speaker, we Republicans have chosen to say no to more government spending and yes to stopping the Democratic leadership's raid on Social Security. The American people have already made that choice as well. They would rather protect Social Security and Medicare than continue funding the fraud, waste, and abuse that runs rampant in government bureaucracy. Americans have to make tough financial choices every day, and I would encourage the Democratic leadership to stop demagoguing this issue and to join our bipartisan effort to end the raid on Social Security once and for all.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to extend my great congratulations and thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the bill that we are about to have. I know it is the best we could do with the Senate that we are dealing with on the other side, and certainly, it is not a perfect bill, of course not. But there have been a great number of mistruths presented in this bill that I would like to straighten out in this few minutes that I have. Over the debate of the last few weeks we have had the so-called Rahall mill site rider included. Did I support it? No. Let me tell my colleagues why. Because the mistruths that were there need to be corrected. Current law mandates that mill sites can only be five acres in size, but additional mill sites may be used in order to support an economic ore body. That is current law. The reason being, this limitation forces the mining company to use only the minimal amount of public land needed. However, when an additional 5-acre mill site is required, mining companies must comply with all State and Federal environmental laws. It is important to note that what many would characterize as ``mine waste'' is nothing more than dirt and rocks covering the ground that is similar to any jogging path or driveway that we have in America today. Allow me to share with my colleagues on the left who oppose this bill the current environmental laws that mining companies must comply with every time they seek an additional five-acre mill site. They must fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. This means that all activities on mill sites located on public land must be evaluated in an environmental impact statement before they are allowed by the BLM or the Forest Service to have additional acreage. They must comply with the Federal Surface Management Rules which apply to Federal lands and State mining and reclamation programs, which apply to Federal, State and private lands. These programs typically require a detailed characterization of the dirt and rocks which is called overburden; operating controls to prevent or control generation of any excess waste or overburden; continuous monitoring of overburden placed on sites; containment of any wastes; precautions to maintain stability of waste management structures; containment of any chemicals to prevent releases to the environment; reclamation of mill sites to return land to post-mining productive use. They must comply with Air Quality standards on Federal, State and private lands. All activities on mill sites are subject to the Federal Clean Air Act; State implementation plans and State air quality laws, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, major source permitting, and new source review; Title V operating permits and regulation of hazardous air pollutants and control of fugitive dust. Mines must also comply with the Surface Water Quality on Federal, State and private lands. All activities on mill sites are subject to the Federal Clean Water Act. All discharges of pollutants are subject to Federal discharge permits and effluent standards, as well as State water quality controls and numeric stream standards. Most mine standards are subject to a Federal zero discharge standard. Mines must comply with the Ground Water Quality on Federal, State and private lands. All activities on mill sites must meet stringent ground water protection requirements and standards promulgated by States. Most States impose a no-discharge standard on mill site activities. The absolute minimum level of protection mandated by any State is the drinking water standards from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. All activities on mill sites must obtain a Federal wetlands protection permit before placing fill or waste on a mill site. At the end of the mine life, all activities on mill site must be closed under State laws to be stable, safe, and to remove the potential to degrade the environment. Lastly, numerous Federal and State laws require operations on mill sites to report spills or environmental incidents and to remediate immediately. Again, reclamation of mill sites must be done to return the land to post-mining productive land use. This measure contains the mill site provision, but it was unnecessary because all mines today have to go through a very stringent evaluation and environmental protection for mill sites. It was unnecessary to have this rider in it and certainly, I could not support that mill site, but I think this is the best bill we could get, and I want to thank the chairman for his success in getting it to the floor.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership in the other body has just gotten caught with both hands stuck in that cookie jar of the Social Security Trust Fund. On May 26 of this year, 147 days ago, I joined with 415 of my colleagues in supporting H.R. 1259. That is the Social Security Lockbox. The fight to stop the raid on Social Security in this year's budget debate offers the best possible reason for passing the Social Security Lockbox bill. If the lockbox were in place this year, the big spenders would have to think twice before trying to go after the funds that rightly should be set aside for seniors of today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the other body has failed to act on this vital legislation. The Democratic leadership refuses to allow this bill to be brought to the floor for a vote. Six times there has been an effort to end their filibuster, and six times, unfortunately, that effort has failed. The Democratic leadership has held the lockbox hostage for 147 days, and 147 days is long enough. It is time for the Democratic leadership in the other body to get its act together.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, ``Shake Rattle and Roll'' may be the words of a famous rock and roll tune, but it is also Mother Nature pointing her finger and writing on the wall. Because less than just 1 week ago last Saturday, Mother Nature sent a 7.0 magnitude earthquake rolling through the western United States. Its epicenter was just about 100 miles east of Los Angeles, but this powerful quake made its way quickly to Las Vegas, derailing a train, and passing through and over Yucca Mountain, the proposed site to bury the Nation's most deadly toxic substance, nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, this quake shook Las Vegas with a 5.0- plus magnitude by the time it reached Las Vegas, and it was felt 100 miles away from the earthquake's epicenter. Mother Nature is pointing her finger at this country urging us to stop the nuclear waste lobbyists from sticking the deadliest wastes known to man into one of man's most seismically active areas of the country. Mr. Speaker, this latest earthquake is yet another sign that Yucca Mountain is not the right place to store nuclear waste. Let us tell Mother Nature that we have heard her loud and clear. Let us stop the Yucca Mountain project. Mother knows best.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the University of Nevada's athletic department and the Wolfpack supporters suffered an enormous loss when their sports information director, Paul Stuart, passed away. Stuart was an avid sports enthusiast and became the Wolfpack's biggest fan when he took the job in 1981. His career at the University of Nevada, Reno, was decorated with numerous awards and citations for simply being one of the best. Whether it was designing the next media guide or providing radio and television commentary, Paul Stuart succeeded in providing a shining light on the Pack's athletic achievements. Stuart, a 1975 graduate from the University of New Mexico, went on to become the information service director at New Mexico Highlands University. Soon after, he left for Nevada and became one of the hardest working individuals in the Wolfpack athletic department, sometimes working well late into the night. And though Paul Stuart was perhaps the largest promoter and fan of the Nevada athletic teams and individuals, he was an even larger fan of his family. Mr. Speaker, as both a Nevadan and a Wolfpack alumnus, my thoughts and prayers go out to Paul's wife Annie and his four children, Calvin, Lindsay, Kara, and Kelsey. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President decided to lock up the Nation's forests and hand the keys to a group of Washington bureaucrats. With this move the President essentially told the American people that they are no longer welcome or able to use and enjoy and recreate on their land, the very land that their forefathers fought and died for. With this move the President has said to the millions of disabled Americans that they would no longer be able to visit and enjoy our national forests as well. This land does not belong to the Federal Government. This land belongs to the American people. The only role that the Federal Government has is to manage it. The President has essentially taken our constituents, the public, and this Congress out of the decision process. Mr. Speaker, if the President's big government initiative goes through, it would effectively bar the majority of the American public from visiting and enjoying their beautiful forests. It seems this administration cannot see the forest through the trees. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and the administration's lack of common sense.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, America's public lands are vital to the future of this Nation, and I have very serious concerns about the President's new scheme to restrict access to these public lands. Most Americans recognize the value that public lands hold for its natural resources as well as the use and development of those natural resources for the quality of life we all enjoy, and no one can deny the opportunity that public lands hold for recreation. Since these lands are in the public domain, individual costs are low and the lands are generally open for all of us to use and enjoy. Now we are seeing a fundamental shift in how our lands are managed for our access. Historically, we have allowed the public to access our lands in the public domain, but unfortunately it appears the President is setting a trend toward keeping our public lands closed unless posted open. This scheme is completely unacceptable to all Americans who use our public lands. To say the public cannot access their lands unless the Federal Government gives them permission is fundamentally opposite to the freedoms our country was founded upon. I yield back, Mr. Speaker, the balance of the time I have and any access America has to its public lands.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, for far too long now we only hear the misleading statements from the environmental extremists about the perils of mining. Well, folks, there is more than fried cabbage here today. There is actually some good news worth listening to. In my district outside of Eureka, Nevada, the Ruby Hill Mine, owned by the Homestake Mining Company, has received the Environmental Excellence in Mine Reclamation Award. Yes, my colleagues heard it, mining is good for the environment. This award was given to Homestake Mining Company because they exhibited outstanding innovation in its design, mitigation, and concurrent reclamation progress. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that mining and the environment can coexist; they can work together and ensure that the environment is not hurt by mining and that we as Americans can still benefit from mining and enjoy the quality of life that we now know. I would like to congratulate the Homestake Mining Company for their dedication, forethought, and hard work in demonstrating that mining has learned to work with the environment. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and all the negative misconceptions about mining and its importance to our country.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for his willingness to share a little bit of his time for us folks. What we are trying to do today is simply avoid a catch-22 provision which we are all knowingly pushing this country toward. Truly, if one looks at the Houghton amendment, it is the most balanced approach to the whole question we have got here today. For those of us who talk about patient reform, needed patient reforms, and HMO reforms, let me say that I agree with my colleagues. That is why I and all the colleagues who have joined on in this amendment are cosponsors of H.R. 2723, and we preserve those patient reforms. We do not change them at all. But let me say that the 1.2 million constituents that I have in the Second Congressional District of Nevada sent me here to make this bill a little better. They sent me here to try to make the Norwood-Dingell better by adopting this substitute. We have heard a lot of claims go about today about, yes, we are closing the door to States' lawsuits, that people will not have the chance, if they are in California, Texas, or Georgia, or whatever, to address those legal remedies that they have. Well, what about the other 44 States who do not have those same provisions? By passing this bill without a uniform common approach to this law, we have shut the door to the citizens of those other 44 States. We are denying them the access to have and to seek damage and remedies that maybe some of these States do not have that we grant, that we allow, that we give this uniform approach under this bill here today. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about why we need to control the cost in this. If we look at the overall rise in health care, and I am sure the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) knows about the rise in health care premiums, and I think it looks like double digit and has been double digits for a number of years. In fact, in Nevada we just took a survey, and 12 percent of the employers, in the last year, said they have dropped their health care coverage for employees because of the continual rise in premiums. That survey also showed that 49 percent of those employers would also drop their health care coverage if these premiums continued to rise. What we are trying to do here is to get to the issue of controlling the cost by giving them uniformity and certainty about damages that they have to estimate in their payment of premiums that continually rise, that put them out. Let me say that for every 1 percent of premium increase, approximately 400,000 people around America go off of the insured roles on to the uninsured. What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, of course, is trying to give certainty to our employers that they know what their exposure to liability is. We all know that punitive damages cannot be insured, that this comes out of pocket of the employer. That is why we take punitive damages off the table. That is why we give a uniform approach to liability, to the remedies that are here. That is very important in this bill. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment because I think it gives uniformity to a much needed piece of legislation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, just last week the National Research Council released its much-anticipated report about hardrock mining on Federal lands. Well, I say to my colleagues take a deep breath and grab their bifocals because this report actually shows a glimmer of common sense. It reaffirms what the mining industry in the State of Nevada has known all along; that is, that we do not need more regulation and restrictions. In fact, this report clearly states that existing Federal and State laws regulating mining are effective in protecting our environment. Unfortunately, there are those in Congress who would like to destroy the mining industry in America by stopping its vital productivity with undue and burdensome Federal regulations. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues, they probably do not think about it, but mining touches them, their constituents, and their families every day. Without mining, there would be no computers, no telephones, no automobiles, no modern medicine or technologies that provide all of us a longer and better quality of life. Unnecessary Federal regulations could put an end to the mining industry and put an end to improving our quality of life. Keep America strong. Keep it moving. Support the mining industry.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we have been fortunate that a nuclear accident like the recent disaster at a Japanese uranium processing plant has not occurred in the United States in the last 3 decades. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to hold on to their gas masks because things could change. A recent article in the Las Vegas Review Journal clearly stated that ``a nuclear chain reaction similar to the one that released dangerous levels of radiation from a Japanese uranium plant could happen with spent fuel the U.S. Government wants to store at Yucca Mountain.'' Unfortunately, the Department of Energy continues to ignore the scientific facts and warnings offered by the nuclear energy experts. Scientists have already concluded that water will drip through the porous rock barrier and accelerate corrosion of the nuclear waste containers, potentially causing a reaction similar to the Japanese nuclear disaster. Mr. Speaker, this Congress cannot in good faith place the lives of thousands of citizens living in the surrounding area of Yucca Mountain in peril. The plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is simply unwarranted, unwise, and dangerous. We can and must prevent such a disaster.

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, it is with great pleasure that I come to the floor today to recognize and congratulate a tennis superstar and fellow Nevadan for capturing his fifth Grand Slam title and his second in 1999. It was merely 2 years ago when the sports writers claimed that Andre Agassi was over the hill in world tennis competition. However, after a superb summer which consisted of his winning the French Open title, a second-place finish at Wimbledon, and winning the U.S. Open title, Agassi recaptured the number one ranking and once again the top of the tennis world. Mr. Speaker, Agassi's unparalleled performances do not end on the court. For the fifth consecutive year Andre Agassi's charitable foundation hosted a Grand Slam for Children that raises money to assist at-risk youth in Las Vegas. With Andre's dedication and tireless efforts, the event raised nearly $4 million to help these children. So, to Andre Agassi I congratulate him on his fifth Grand Slam title and also thank him for his outreach and assistance to the children of Nevada. We are indeed proud of him.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time here to address some of these issues. I am not sure whether we are here arguing about the mill site provision on the basis of science or emotion. I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct conferees because this amendment, this provision on the mill site is nothing but a rider which we constantly hear, it is a rider on an appropriations bill, it is legislating on an appropriations bill, and it is not necessary. Members start talking about the sound science, as I hear from the previous speakers who are in support of this motion, on the basis that it is needed to protect our land and protect our environment. I refer them directly to the publication which was just printed, in fact it was released September 29, 1999, from the National Research Council titled ``Hard Rock Mining on Federal Lands.'' The number one issue in this 200-page report that was paid for and authorized to study this issue says that the existing array of Federal and State laws regulating mining in general are effective in protecting the environment. There is no reason that we have to sit here and talk about restricting mill sites to protect the environment. I would agree with my colleague from Washington that the 1872 law says that it is a five- acre mill site. That is for one reason, because we permit and we stake out or locate mill sites in five-acre increments. But when we restrict this five acres to a 20-acre claim, it does not allow for the administration, the milling, as well as the overburden and tailings that come from a 20-acre mine. You cannot take 20 acres of overburden rock, move them off of 20 acres and stack them on five acres and put your administration there, put your mill site there, as well as the tailings that are off of this mine. So I would suggest that this is really a poor interpretation of the current mining practices that have not been challenged even by this administration until this recent Solicitor General's opinion that was put in simply to stop the Crown Jewel mine in Washington State. For the past practices of this industry, the administration through the Bureau of Land Management has permitted numerous mill site applications per mining claim, not restricting them to numbers but only to five acres in size and increment, so that you could get more than one 5-acre mill site per mining claim. This is necessary because of the current practices of mining. Unlike underground mining which is in my colleague's State of West Virginia here, most of the mining out West is done in open pit style mining where it takes a great deal of overburden, removes that off of the ore deposit and then mines the ore body. It takes a requirement of acreage larger than five acres to put an overburden that comes from a 20-acre mill site. What we would be doing here in effect by passing this motion to instruct conferees and restricting them to a five-acre limitation would be to effectively and retroactively go back and shut down these mines. I think that is in the wrong direction that we would be taking this industry, and so I would suggest to my colleagues that we oppose this, because there is no real need for this provision. We are able to go back through the permitting process, through all of the environmental agencies, through all of the agencies that oversee mining and actually look and review the requirements for more than a single five-acre mill site with some of these mines. And in doing that process, we have then protected the environment. We have looked at it from all angles. But to restrict them on an arbitrary basis that you only get five acres is totally unfounded in the science and is supported by this recent publication here that we have in our hands today. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in this area. I do rise in opposition to this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2466, the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Act. This motion will allow the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to amend the existing mining law without congressional authorization. In March of this year, the Solicitor at the Department of the Interior reinterpreted a longstanding provision of law and then relied on his new interpretation to stop a proposed gold mine in Washington State. This proposed mine (Crown Jewel) had gone through a comprehensive environmental review by Federal and State regulators, which was upheld by a federal district court. They had met every environmental standard required and secured over 50 permits. The mine qualified for their Federal permit after spending $80 million and waiting over 7 years. The local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service officials informed the mine sponsors that they qualified for the permit and they should come to their office to receive it. It was then that the Solicitor in Washington D.C. intervened and used his novel interpretation of the law to reject the project. This Motion is cleverly designed to codify this administrative reinterpretation. This interpretation has been implemented without any congressional oversight or rulemaking which would be open to public review and comment. This was a calculated effort to give broad discretion to the Solicitor to stop mining projects that met all environmental standards yet were still opposed by special interest groups. The Motion should be defeated and the Solicitor should be required to seek a congressional change to the law of enter a formal rulemaking giving the impacted parties an opportunity to comment on the change. If allowed to stand, the Interior Department's ruling will render the Mining Law virtually meaningless and shut down all hard rock mining operations and projects representing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment throughout the West. This Motion would destroy the domestic mining industry and with the price of gold at a new 30-year low, the second largest industry in Nevada will cease to exist. Pay attention Congress, mining will no longer exist in Nevada. If the Secretary or his solicitor has problems with the United States mining law then he should take these problems to Congress, to be debated in the light of day, before the American public. Laws are not made by unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrats administer the laws Congress approves whether or not they agree with those laws. It is the duty of government in a democracy to deal honestly with its citizens and not to cheat them. As the Wall Street Journal stated, ``if the Solicitor's millsite opinion is allowed to stand, investment in the U.S. will be as risky as third world nations.'' The International Union of Operating Engineers opposed the Rahall amendment on the basis that if passed it will force the continued loss of high paying U.S. direct and indirect blue-collar jobs in every congressional district. The Constitution gives the people control over the laws that govern them by requiring that statutes be affirmed personally by legislators and a president elected by the people. Majorities in the House and Senate must enact laws and constituents can refuse to re-elect a legislator who has voted for a bad law. Many Americans no longer believe that they have a government by and for the people. They see government unresponsive to their concerns, beyond their control and view regulators as a class apart, serving themselves in the complete guise of serving the public. When regulators take it upon themselves to legislate through the regulatory process the people lose control over the laws that govern them. No defensible claim can be made that regulators possess superior knowledge of what constitutes the public good. Nor to take it upon themselves to create laws they want because of congressional gridlock-- the value laden word for a decision not to make law. The so-called gridlock that the policy elites view as to unconscionable was and is no problem for people who believe in the separation of powers doctrine contained in the Constitution which holds that laws indeed should not be made unless the broad support exists to get those laws through the Article I process of the Constitution, i.e., ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be bested in Congress.'' Let us debate the merits of the proposal, do not destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of miners just to appease special interest groups whose entire agenda is to rid our public lands of mining. If you have problems with mining on our public lands come and see me, together we can make positive changes but do not destroy the lives of my constituents today by supporting this Motion! Without mining none of us would have been able to get to work today, we would not have a house over our heads--because without mining we have nothing. Give our mining families a chance to earn a living, to work to provide the very necessities that you require. Oppose the devastating riders in the Motion to Instruct Conferees and uphold your constitutional oath to your constituents.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the American public and the American people deserve to hear the truth about who will better protect Social Security and America's future. Under the Democratic-controlled Congress, Congress raided the Social Security trust fund in every year, in every budget, for nearly three decades. Why? So they could pay for bigger, more wasteful government bureaucracy. Now this Congress, for the first time, has a chance to stop this incredulous thief of big-government spending, the one who steals from the future of Social Security. Since the Republicans have taken control of Congress, we have slowed the runaway government spending of our colleagues over here on the left and begun balancing the budget for the first time in nearly 40 years and will do this without dipping into Social Security surpluses. The American public needs to tell the tax-and-spend Democrats and the President to quit raiding Social Security and work with the Republicans to better protect Social Security and America's future. Americans have a clear choice, support a strong Republican principle of saving Social Security and securing America's future, or support the Democrat's expanding, expensive new government and their tax-and-spend bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, it is America's choice.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, just two days ago this chamber approved, unfortunately, $352 million for the continued development of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, just north of Las Vegas, Nevada. On that very same day, a public hearing on that project was held in Las Vegas, and at this hearing numerous experts testified that the Department of Energy's draft impact report ignored completely the basic principles of sound science. And, just to make matters worse, the Energy Department's impact report failed to follow the law requiring them to consider alternatives to Yucca Mountain for storing high level nuclear waste. And, by the way, it did not consider the dangers of transporting the high level nuclear waste across America to Yucca Mountain. But these issues, by necessity, deal with sound science. Obviously the Energy Department is not interested in sound science. It does not take a scientist, Mr. Speaker, to know that funding a nuclear waste storage project which lacks a sound scientific rational is not only wasteful, but dangerous. I yield back the trace of all nuclear waste across this country and the green garbage it leaves behind.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Senate bill 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1999, has been introduced in the United States Senate. Although this bill would not establish a temporary nuclear storage facility in Nevada, you should be aware of its misguided attempts to deal with the permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The passage of this legislation would place unneeded and dangerous environmental, safety, and health risks upon millions of Americans. Therefore, I would urge the President to uphold his commitment to Nevada and the American people by reaffirming his veto promise. Senate bill 187 would accelerate the time line for permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain, ignoring the ongoing scientific studies and our Nation's environmental laws that were designed to protect its citizens. It would also allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not the EPA, to establish dangerous radiation standards. Such a change in law would facilitate contamination of groundwater supplies and endanger all Americans along the transportation routes with higher dosage of deadly radiation, ultimately destroying the lives of American families. Mr. President, where is your promise? The American people deserve to hear your voice on this critically important issue.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, the old adage that ``old habits die hard'' could not be more appropriate to what has occurred in China since this Congress last July voted to renew most-favored-nation status, now called normal trade relations, or NTR, for another year. I would like to provide a short update, because many so-called administrative experts are calling for the granting of permanent NTR for China before the end of this year. I want you to judge for yourself. Get this: Police in Southern China arrested 31 people and demolished three churches just to crush a Protestant religious group. The expectation is that these church leaders will receive a show trial which will be a mockery of justice with no due process and be subject to severe sentences, all because of their choice of worship. And get this: A recent revelation by the Washington Post, 100,000 people, that is right, 100,000 people were recently arrested, all in preparation for the celebrations China has planned for the 50th anniversary of the Communist rule. One hundred thousand people put in jail under the guise of social stability and safety. How ironic. Madam Speaker, NTR as it applies to China actually stands for ``not truly ready.'' I urge my colleagues and the administration to think hard before we make this choice of permanent status. I yield back the balance of my time and any common sense remaining regarding our efforts with China.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Chairman Spence for all of his hard work on this bill. His time and commitment is appreciated by me and this entire Congress. The reason I am before you is to discuss the ability of State and local governments to carry out their legitimate environmental, safety, and health oversight authority under the newly formed National Nuclear Security Administration, as set forth in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the State of Nevada is among several states that house nuclear weapons production and/or testing facilities. Nevada is in fact home to the Nevada Test Site. A unique national resource, the Nevada Test Site is a massive outdoor laboratory and national experimental center that is larger than the state of Rhode Island. Established as the Atomic Energy Commission's on-continent proving ground, the Nevada Test Site has seen more than four decades of nuclear weapons testing. Since the nuclear weapons testing moratorium in 1992, and under the direction of the Department of Energy (DOE), test site use has diversified into many other programs such as hazardous chemical spill testing, emergency response training, conventional weapons testing, and waste management and environmental technology studies. Mr. Speaker, the states that house our nation's nuclear weapons testing facilities, including my home state of Nevada, will be subject to the DOE re-organization provisions in this bill. Our efforts to protect the oversight rights of these states is paramount. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Nevada need your assurance that nothing in Title 32 of this bill, relating to the National Nuclear Security Administration, is intended to limit, modify, affect, or otherwise change any local, state or federal environmental, safety or health law, including any waiver of federal sovereign immunity in any such federal law, or any obligation of the Administration or the Department to comply with any such local, state or federal law. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Spence for his work on this bill and I appreciate his willingness to work with me on this very important issue.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his leadership on this issue, and I rise in strong support of the bill H.R. 1487, a bill that will ensure public participation in the creation of national monuments. Quite frankly, I am surprised that there would be any type of opposition to this legislation. We are not abrogating the President's power or his authority under the Antiquities Act in any way except to require him to allow public participation into the process. He can still create monuments. No size limitations will be imposed except those already existing or contained in the original 1906 act. The President can still act quickly. In fact, he can even avoid public participation provisions in this bill if there is some unforeseen emergency that cannot be taken care of by existing withdrawal authorities. There is simply no reason to oppose this bill. All we are asking is that national monument proposals see the light of day before being sprung on Congress, a State, and the American public. Even President Clinton's most ardent supporters admit that the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was unfair, discourteous, and partisan. I would like to add that it was also a slap in the face of the people of Utah and showed general disdain and lack of respect for democratic principles. There is nothing to stop it from happening again in my State or in my colleagues'. If we pass this legislation, the American public will be able to participate in the national monument proclamation process. That should not be too much to ask from any administration. In almost every other public lands decision, they are afforded the right to receive information on pending public lands decisions and afforded the right to submit comments. This is not anything unusual. In fact, it is the right way to conduct business. Mr. Chairman, if the public participation is good, and I submit that it is, then it should be applied across the board. H.R. 1487 is a great bill. It will inject light and open us into a process that needs to be more open. I intend to vote for H.R. 1487, and I urge all my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes politicians talk about improving people's lives, but usually that is about as far as it goes, just talk. Well, true to form, yesterday the President had an opportunity to sign into law a bill that would directly help the American taxpayers, but he did not. The tax relief package just vetoed by this President would have given working families more freedom to run their lives the way they see fit, more freedom giving them more power, more time, more control over their lives. It would have reduced the marriage tax penalty, one of the most blatantly unfair demons in the Tax Code. It would have made it easier for workers to buy and cover themselves with health insurance. It would have made it easier for parents to save for their children's education. It would have eliminated the death tax, making it easier to pass on the family farm or family business to loved ones after a lifetime of work. It would have made it easier to invest and save for our future. Balanced and fair, it would have provided substantial debt reduction, protected Social Security and Medicare, and provided tax relief to American taxpayers. And Washington would have gotten a little less so that hard-working, taxpaying families could have a little more. I yield back the balance of any money Mr. and Mrs. America have left in their pockets.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today President Clinton vetoed the much- needed tax relief package passed by this Congress. President Clinton has permanently cemented his legacy as a tax raiser and sworn enemy of tax cuts. By vetoing this legislation, the President is denying the average middle-class family relief from the marriage tax penalty. The President is robbing millions of workers the opportunity to obtain health insurance benefits who cannot afford to do so now. He is making it more difficult for parents to save for their children's education. He is making it more difficult for people to pass on the family farm or the family business after a lifetime of toil, sacrifice, and devotion to building a great enterprise. The President is making it more difficult for people to save for their future and provide for their own retirement. This vetoed tax relief legislation would have been a step toward more fairness in the Tax Code and it would have reduced the burden on people who are carrying the load, paying the taxes, and trying to live the American dream. This veto is irresponsible and dangerous. Once again, Government wins and the taxpayer loses.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the average working family in Nevada toiled until May 14 of this year just to pay their tax bill. Now, this seems not only unbelievable but unconscionable, as well. However, it is true, and here is why: Mr. Speaker, Americans are paying a record-high 21 percent of their gross domestic product in taxes, the highest since World War II according to the Congressional Budget Office. The average U.S. household will pay approximately $5,307 more in taxes to their Government than it needs over the next 10 years according to the Congressional Research Service. The typical American working family pays more than 38 percent of its income in total taxes, more than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. The average household pays $9,445 in federal income taxes alone, which is twice what it paid in 1985. Is it any wonder that Americans feel as though they are working harder than ever but cannot seem to get ahead? Broad-based tax relief is the best answer. Working families should not be working for Washington. Rather, Washington should be working for families. I yield back any change we have in our pockets.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of three POWs, and I recall the words of President John F. Kennedy who once said, ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it.'' Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better words to describe three former World War II POWs from Nevada who were honored with POW Medals at Nellis Air Force Base last Friday. Gerard Gauthier, Edwin Kuhlmann, and Robert Stumpf did not shrink from their responsibilities, indeed they welcomed them, ultimately enduring the greatest test of fighting men and women, as captives of our enemies. Just as the Soldiers' Code of Conduct now says, these men never forgot that they were American fighting men, responsible for their actions and dedicated to the principles which made our country free. I stand here to honor these men, men of one of the greatest generations for providing the fighting men and women that followed in their footsteps the bedrock for returning with honor. As a veteran of two of our Nation's wars, I salute their sacrifices and services. They are our heroes. They are our Nation's heroes. I thank them for their patriotism, their courage, and their inspiration.