Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to support the bill, H.R. 1231. This bill will convey two small acres of land, of Forest Service land to Elko, Nevada for the permanent and continued use as a cemetery. The cemetery is located in Jarbidge, Nevada, a small rural community in Elko County. Known historically for its contribution to Nevada's mining industry, this community is surrounded by National Forest Service lands and the Jarbidge Wilderness Area. Within this vast public land is a small cemetery under the administration of the Forest Service where generation after generation of residents of this historic mining community have been laid to rest. The earliest tombstones, Mr. Speaker, are dated in the very early 1900s, and some members of the Jarbidge community claim this land was used as a cemetery long before it was designated as Forest Service land. Since 1915, the Jarbidge Cemetery has been operated under a permit to Elko County by a special use authorization, which runs periodically for 10 and occasionally 20 years. In an effort to remove the uncertainty about the continued existence of this cemetery and to resolve the operational responsibilities, the residents of Jarbidge have long expressed an interest in having the cemetery conveyed to the county so they might have a permanent and private cemetery. This is why I introduced H.R. 1231. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to understand that the residents are asking for conveyance of this land because they, and I would agree, and I think it is reasonable, feel that it is not right to pay for the graves of Nevada's parents and grandparents. Many of those buried at Jarbidge are miners and their families, and in fact are the founders of the small Elko County community. Given the hundreds of thousands of acres administered by the Forest Service in this region and their oversight of the Jarbidge wilderness area, the conveyance of two acres for the purpose of allowing the residents to privately own the resting place of their relatives seems to be both rational and fair, keeping in mind, of course, that we are talking about a cemetery, the final resting place for people, the Nevadans and their loved ones. Furthermore, I believe that it is our government's civic duty, the duty to do what is right on behalf of the American people and our constituents, to convey without cost these two small acres. I am sure if we took a national poll, the vast majority of people, if not all Americans, would agree that the conveyance of these two acres free of charge would be in the best public interest of any good use of our public land. Therefore, I would like to ask all my colleagues to support this commonsense and fair legislation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Berkley amendment. As most of you know, I have spoken at length to explain the reasons why nuclear waste should not be sent to an interim or permanent storage facility in Nevada. I have been asked many times what the alternative is to permanent burial of high level nuclear waste. The answer is transmutation. The word transmutation originates from the goal of ancient alchemists to transform, or transmute base metals into gold. Today scientists seek ways, and have developed proven systems to transmute radioactive waste into nonradioactive elements, thereby eliminating the radiological hazards and waste disposal problems. The first mistake this country made in regards to the problem of spent nuclear fuel occurred in 1977, when President Carter halted all U.S. efforts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The concern was that when reprocessing occurs it could potentially create a smaller, but refined fuel that could be stolen and used in nuclear weapons. He argued that the United States should halt its reprocessing program as an example to other countries in the hope that they would follow suit. As we can see today other countries did not follow our example and in the end harmed our efforts to deal with spent nuclear fuel. Senator Domenici understands this problem well and has presented a solution, a solution that is supported by this amendment before you today. He stated in regards to the transmutation of nuclear waste: Let me highlight one attractive option. A group from several of our largest companies, using technologies developed at three of our national laboratories and from Russian institutes and their nuclear navy, discussed with me an approach to use that waste for electrical generation. They use an accelerator, not a reactor, so there is never any critical assembly. There is minimal processing, but carefully done so that weapons-grade materials are never separated out and so that international verification can be used--but now the half lives are changed so that it's a hazard for perhaps 300 years--a far cry from 100,000 years. This approach, called Accelerator Transmutation of Waste, is an area I want to see investigated aggressively. We are realizing some of the benefits of nuclear technologies today, but only a fraction of what we could realize. [W]e aren't tapping the full potential of the nucleus for additional benefits. In the process, we are short-changing our citizens. While some may continue to lament that the nuclear genie is out of his proverbial bottle, I'm ready to focus on harnessing that genie as effectively and fully as possible, for the largest set of benefit for our citizens. Senator Domenici is correct and we should not be shortchanging or endangering our citizens. And that is exactly what will happen if we fail to further the development and utilization of transmutation. Let's not bury our hands in the sand, the same approach this country is currently taking with the permanent burial of our nuclear waste. The alternative that we face is disastrous because the nuclear power industry has spent millions of dollars in their campaign to convince members of Congress that storage of high level nuclear waste in Nevada is sound science, fiscally responsible and poses no dangers to public health and safety. Unfortunately, none of this is true. In 1987, in political haste, Congress arbitrarily selected Yucca Mountain, 95 miles northwest of Las Vegas (the fastest growing metropolitan city in the country), to host a permanent repository for high level nuclear waste. Realizing that the Yucca Mountain project has become a failure and has needlessly expended millions of taxpayer dollars, the nuclear industry has now changed its focus to ``interim storage.'' This so-called interim storage lasts for over 100 years. Aside from the fact that Nevada has never benefitted from nuclear generated power, there are numerous reasons why this legislation is irresponsible, indefensible and wrong. First, transporting nuclear waste recklessly endangers the rights of millions of private property owners across the United States and ignores over 20 years of environmental statutes. The private property implications could significantly add to the federal tab. A precedent has already been set in New Mexico. In 1992, Mr. John Komis was awarded over $800,000 for the devaluation of his property because of the public's perceived fear of nuclear waste. The City of Santa Fe condemned 43 acres for construction of a highway to transport nuclear waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project site. The District Court and the New Mexico Supreme Court both upheld a decision to award Komis the money because there was a perceived devaluation of land due to the transportation of nuclear waste adjacent to that land. As this high level nuclear waste travels from the 109 nuclear reactors located primarily on the east coast to a facility in Nevada, the transportation routes cross 43 states and run through thousands of local communities across the country. Imagine the burden on the federal Treasury if all the property owners adjacent to these proposed transportation routes were awarded like Mr. Komis. The cost to the federal government would be staggering. Second, permanent disposal clearly does not go far enough to protect our environmental and jurisdictional concerns. It still blatantly ignores many environmental and public health statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. In addition, it completely ignores the public process that is specifically outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to consider alternatives, seek public comment and consider any and all environmental ramifications before proceeding with a major federal action. Transportation of high level nuclear waste also warrants serious concern, because the consequences would be devastating. A 1985 DOE contractor report concluded that a severe, credible accident involving a single, current-generation rail cask could result in release of radioactive materials to the environment. According to the study, release of only a small fraction of the cask's contents would be sufficient to contaminate a 42 square-mile area. The costs of cleanup after such an accident would exceed $620 million, and the cleanup effort would require 460 days, if it occurred in a rural area. Now imagine the cost of a similar cleanup in an urban area, realizing these costs cannot include the intangible cost of human life and health. The environment and the health and safety of millions of people will be jeopardized because of political expediency. With all the attention of the nuclear waste debate focusing on a solution that does not consider good, sound science, economic or social implications or health and safety or environmental issues it is easy to lose sight of possible solutions. We need to shift the focus from concentrating on an industry wish list to a viable, realistic solution that considers these vitally important issues. In truth, while we were developing the technology to transport the waste, we discovered and perfected the safest storage capability available. It is known as dry cask storage. The scientific, economic and safety arguments all result in dry-cask storage as the best solution to store high level nuclear waste. Articles in the San Francisco Chronicle and The Washington Post both aggressively support this approach to solving this dilemma. This coupled with the technology of transmutation is truly the best long term solution for our country. In the future, spent nuclear fuel could become a very valuable resource. With technology using transmutators with accelerators, we will be able to use spent nuclear fuel as an energy source and in the process drastically reduce the volume from approximately 90% unused nuclear fuel to less than 10% unused. In addition, this substantially decreases the half-life of this dangerous substance. By keeping this spent fuel on site, it is the best environmental solution, and it is easily retrievable for the purpose of transmutation. When taking a close look at the details, it is easy to see a realistic solution to the nuclear waste dilemma that the nation is facing. It is time to abandon the track of political expediency and look to sensible, responsible alternatives. On-site, dry cask storage and transmutation does not bust the budget, does not endanger private property rights, public health and safety, nor does it roll back years of environmental statutes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support a common sense solution for our nations spent nuclear fuel.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, our military forces have been facing 13 consecutive years of defense cuts. Now we are at a critical point where personnel and readiness levels are literally bleeding our defense capabilities dry. Retention and readiness are two critical issues facing our military forces today, and we must provide the necessary incentives for our troops to retain their skills to get the job done. Furthermore, Congress must support increased health benefits and pay increases for our Nation's military men and women. We must also fully fund their equipment modernization and training so our troops can maintain a peak level of performance. Before this Congress or this administration even so much as debates yet another deployment of our Armed Forces, we must without question provide the necessary funding for our brave men and women to perform the jobs we have asked them to do. Today this body has an important opportunity to address the critical issues of underfunded quality of life readiness and modernization requirements in our military. I urge my colleagues to tell the military men and women in their districts that they support them by voting yes on the DOD authorization bill today.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are some Members of this body that would like to eliminate the American mining industry. However, many of them do not realize how important this industry is to America and to its future. Without the mining industry, we would not have the system of transportation that enables America to get to work and be productive. In fact, we would not have a refrigerator that preserves and keeps our food cold and would not have a bed to sleep in or even a house to live in, not to mention that the combined direct and indirect economic impact of the Nation's metal mining industry amounts to more than $112 billion per year. The metal industry paid $523 million directly to State and local governments, $620 million in taxes and fees to the Federal Government, $7 billion to other businesses for supplies and almost $3.5 billion in wages and benefits. By the time this $11.6 billion circulates throughout the economy, the metal mining industry directly had a $112 billion impact on the Nation's economy. Mining is not just about our quality of life, however, or the hard working families. It is also about the contributions it makes to medical advancements, our schools, neighborhoods, State and local and Federal Governments. Mining is a partner with government, with communities all across America.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, over the August recess I held nearly 20 town hall meetings across the great State of Nevada talking with constituents about the Republican tax plan and how it was going to help them and their families. Now this legislation is based on a very simple idea, the idea that once Government pays its bills and has money left over, it should be returned to those who paid: the taxpayer. Most taxpayers know if their money is left in Washington, politicians will spend it every time. Mr. Speaker, the average family in Nevada worked until May 14 this year just to pay their tax bill. Simply put: Nevadans spent roughly the first 4 months of each year working for the Federal Government. We are at a crossroads in our country's history. We balanced the budget, reformed welfare, cut wasteful spending, and created a surplus revenue in Washington, D.C. But a windfall for Washington is not right. Working families should not be working just for Washington, but Washington should be working for taxpayers, and cutting taxes is the best way to tip the scales back to our constituents, the hard-working people. After all, Mr. Speaker, this debate is about downsizing the power of Government and upscaling the power of the people.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the bureaucratic daydreamers at the International Monetary Fund are at it again. They are exploring the far reaches of reality and resorting to voodoo economics. My home State of Nevada is the largest gold producing State in the Nation. This vital industry helps put food on the table, buy homes, send kids to colleges for thousands of Nevada families. The trouble has been on the horizon for the past several months as the IMF has been scheming to dump part of their gold reserve on to the open market in an effort to hide its debt losses. Their latest debt forgiveness scheme is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and voodoo economics. The gold scheme sale will lead to a disrupted and flooded commodity market which translates into a plummeting economy for many countries. The reality in Nevada is still the same. It will cause more mines in North America to begin closing at an even more alarming pace and thousands of America's hardest working men and women will be out of work, unable to feed their families; all because of the IMF. Congress has the power to stop this ill-conceived IMF scheme and I urge my colleagues to oppose the voodoo economics of this taxpayer giveaway.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the two major earthquakes that hit Nevada on the morning of August 1 are further examples of why nuclear waste repositories should not, should not, be built at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Nevada officials that oversee the DOE operations at Yucca Mountain stated, and I quote, ``In our minds, it sort of speaks to the fact that DOE, or anyone else, cannot really predict with any confidence what is going to happen in the future,'' end quote. The large earthquakes, registering between 5.6 and 5.2 in magnitude, occurred a relatively short distance from Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, there are 32 separate earthquake faults in the area and scientists have concluded that Yucca Mountain is capable of a magnitude 8.5 earthquake and poses too many risks and variables for adequate seismic design. Clearly, common sense tells us one does not store nuclear waste in an area that ranks third in the country for seismic activity, an area that had more than 630 earthquakes in the last 20 years. A recent editorial summed it up well when it stated, quote, ``Anyone who believes that it is safe to dump nuclear waste into that type of environment needs a brain scan,'' end quote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of any time I may have, and the brains of the DOE that may be left to scan.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, let us have a reality check. How can we have a debate about tax cuts without discussing who pays the taxes? That is right, who pays the taxes? Now, many people might find this quite odd; bizarre, in fact, in circumstances in today's politics, but I think most people would have to agree with me that one side never, ever talks about who pays the taxes. In fact, in all my years of politics, I have yet to hear a Democrat talk about who pays the taxes. Just this week, I have heard perhaps 100 speeches by Democrats attacking the Republican tax relief package and have not heard a single Democrat discuss the question of who pays the taxes? This goes without saying, of course. None of the networks ever do a story on who pays the taxes. For example, I wonder how many Americans are aware of the fact that the top 50 percent of income earners pay 96 percent of the Federal income taxes. That is right. The bottom 50 percent pay only 4 percent of the load. Now, just think about that for a second. I ask, why do my Democrat colleague refuse to discuss the question of who pays the taxes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Lake Tahoe. Mark Twain once said, as he described Lake Tahoe, it was ``the fairest picture the whole Earth afforded.'' With an estimated 30 percent of the trees and forests surrounding Lake Tahoe dead or dying, and the lake losing almost a foot of clarity a year, many environmental changes must be made to ensure that we pass on to our children the same wonderful gift of nature in the same pristine condition in which we found it. A very important first step in this battle was taken when we hosted the Lake Tahoe Environmental Summit in July of 1997. As a result of these meetings $48 million in Federal funds were committed to the Lake Tahoe Basin for clean-up and conservation efforts. But most importantly, the majority of these dollars were available to State and local agencies of Lake Tahoe, and not a Federal bureaucracy. The agreement reached at Lake Tahoe is a shining example of concerns of environmentalists, conservationists, and even private property owners are not mutually exclusive. I commend all those involved, and look forward to the second annual Tahoe Summit to report on the positive and cooperative efforts that would truly benefit this gem in the sky.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the claim of some of my colleagues that gold mines get a free ride because they do not pay their fair share of Federal royalties. Well, when considering a Federal tax increase on the mining industry, we must always remind my tax and spend colleagues to take into account the adverse effect of such a tax increase on state and local tax revenues as well. There is a direct correlation between increasing mining royalties or taxes and the reduction in mining activities. The unintended consequence is that State and local governments suffer great tax losses by these resulting decreases in mining activities. Federal royalties are deductible from the income base on which many of these State taxes are levied. This results in an even less tax dollar amount for State and local governments. Even a recent economic analysis shows that an 8 percent gross royalty would cost State and local governments hundreds of millions in tax revenues every year. Mr. Speaker, it becomes very clear that when a Federal royalty is not in the best economic interests of this country or the mining industry, we should avoid it. Abraham Lincoln had the great foresight when he said, ``Tell the miners for me that I shall promote their interests to the utmost of my ability, because their prosperity is the prosperity of the Nation, and we shall prove in a very few short years that we are indeed the treasury of the world.''

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, ordered three U.S. Air Force Red Horse Squadron combat engineer teams from Nellis Air Force Base to Albania. Their mission was to execute critical road and bridge repairs in this war-torn region as part of NATO's efforts to see a peaceful and safe return to a countless number of refugees. Tonight will be a special evening at Nellis Air Force Base as many of these dedicated troops will be returning to their families and friends. Mr. Speaker, 61 members of the Red Horse Squadron will arrive on base tonight to a warm Nevada welcome. This last spring, I had the opportunity to visit the Balkan region with some of my House colleagues and we were able to witness firsthand the enormous damage caused to the Kosovo region. The task of removing land mines and repairing this region is an enormous challenge for our servicemen and women and continues to be to this date. So on behalf of all Nevadans, let me say ``welcome home'' to the members of the Red Horse Squadron. I salute them for their valuable service to this country and to this effort. As we continue to help these refugees back to their farmlands and homes, let us hope that all of our American troops will remain safe and return home in the very near future.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we should always be encouraged when the private sector tackles one of the social problems facing our Nation without government help. Such is the case with our Nation's gaming industry. However, it should also be important to recall that a vast majority of Americans who choose to gamble do so responsibly. In an effort to emphasize the casino gaming entertainment industry's commitment to responsible gaming, August 2 to August 6 has been designated as ``responsible gaming education week.'' This campaign follows last year's inaugural implementation of this successful program. The idea is designed to raise the awareness of persons with disordered gaming habits and to further educate casino employees and customers about the importance of responsible gaming. During this week, all casino employees will be asked to actively promote and institute responsible gaming practices within their companies. As a part of this effort, over 250,000 educational brochures on the characteristics of disordered gambling and the importance of responsible gaming will be provided to casino employees across America. Mr. Speaker, obviously the gaming industry is taking positive steps to improve the gaming entertainment opportunities by helping those with addictive problems.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again. The left-leaning, anti-mining zealots want a Federal tax on all mining operations on an estimated, hypothetical, or proposed value of a mine. Moreover, the proposed values that are given to these mines are nothing but sheer guesses that always grossly overexaggerate the worth of the mineral deposit. For example, some of these mining opponents cite the Stillwater Mine in Montana as a taxpayer giveaway of $38 billion. Grossly exaggerated, Mr. Speaker. $38 billion could fund a hostile takeover of the Ford Motor Company. This amount of money could purchase the entire metal mining industry in the United States and Canada. Some claim that patents to Barrick Gold Mine have a value of $10 billion. Keep in mind that the supposed 10 billion is wrapped up in a small acreage of desert rock. Using their irrational logic, one could say that the raw land beneath the Washington Post printing plant would be worth several billion dollars itself. In 1556 Georgious Agricola stated the miners should start mining operations in a district only where it is friendly. This quote still holds true today. Stop the anti-mining greed.

Mr. GIBBONS

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

Mr. GIBBONS. First of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and his time and commitment is appreciated by me and the entire Congress. And for this reason, Mr. Chairman, I am here at the well to discuss the ability of the State of Nevada and all affected local governments in the State to carry out their oversight authority of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as was granted to them under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Currently the Department of Energy is conducting tests to determine if Yucca Mountain will be a suitable permanent repository site for nuclear waste. When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was created, Members of this body felt that it was imperative for the State of Nevada and all affected local governments to have sufficient resources to carry out their own oversight. These necessary moneys are used to properly oversee tests the Department of Energy is carrying out to determine whether or not Yucca Mountain is suitable as a permanent nuclear waste site. This is a very critical part of the 1982 act because it allowed for Nevada and, particularly its residents, to have confidence in the scientific studies and especially the validity of those tests that the Department of Energy has been conducting. These resources will allow for State and local governments to continue to perform their own independent validation and oversight tests to ensure the best science is used to determine site suitability. It has been my experience that local scientists have been nonbiased and have produced needed assurances that only the best scientific data is used to determine the hydrologic and geologic character of the Yucca Mountain area. We have nearly 2 million people in Nevada, and their safety and quality of life in this debate should not be ignored, making it imperative that we provide the financial resources to ensure the State of Nevada and affected local governments are able to monitor and report on this activity. Therefore, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the House conferees work with me to get $4.727 million for the State of Nevada and $5.432 million for the affected local governments. These appropriated amounts are consistent with the moneys appropriated in the Senate Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. And as time moves closer to designate Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear repository, it becomes imperative that we address the scientific and safety concerns of the citizens of Nevada, and again I would thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his work on this bill and appreciate his willingness to work with me on this very important issue.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his understanding on this very important issue. These moneys are important to Nevada and to its future.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, time and time again we have heard the opponents of the 1872 mining law come down to the well and state that the United States is the only major country which does not charge a Federal royalty for mining on government land. These same anti-mining critics want to add a 5 to 10 percent tax on all U.S. mineral production. A recent survey was conducted on 17 major mining countries that compete with the United States. These 17 countries account for about 85 percent of all metal and minerals produced by the free world market economy. The average royalty they pay in these 17 countries surveyed was just under 1 percent, that is right, less than 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, the United States must remain competitive internationally, and these proposed changes to the mining law would not allow us to do so. The United States is already a net importer of most minerals. Why is it that we are so worried about the trade deficit, and here we are talking about potential legislation that would render us completely dependent upon foreign nations for necessary goods and minerals that could be produced right here at home? Mr. Speaker, Congress would be wise to encourage mineral development to offset the trade deficit and our dependence on foreign countries. In the meantime, this would create jobs, thereby increasing tax revenues and lowering social costs to the government.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell my colleagues that this bill does a lot for our troops around America. But I just cannot support the elimination of the F-22. Readiness, my colleagues, is the key issue, and it is based upon modernization of our forces. The issue is whether or not we are going to give our young men and women who are fighting on the front line the technology to win that fight. I remember one time when I was a young boy, someone came to me when I was first learning about defense; and he said, ``Son, you never want to bring a knife to a gun fight. You lose every time.'' This saying came to mind when I looked at this issue about the F-22 because it is an issue about technology. In that debate over this technology, we have heard about U.S. successes in the Persian Gulf and even in Kosovo that provided a rationale to ``pause'' production of the F-22. Upon further and closer examination, that argument just does not fly, and let me tell my colleagues why. Because the Serbian as well as the Iraqi Air Forces never truly engaged our pilots in a fight or sustained aerial combat. In any future combat, it would be foolish of us to presuppose the bad guys would be afraid to challenge our forces. Mr. Chairman, we have heard arguments that the U.S. successes in the Persian Gulf War and the Kosovo Conflict provide the rationale to ``pause'' the production of the F-22. However, upon closer inspection, this argument does not fly, most notably because neither the Iraqis nor the Serbian Air Forces actually engaged our fighters in sustained aerial combat. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that our forces performed brilliantly, however it would be tactically inept to pre-suppose that future ``bad guys'' will be afraid to send fighters up to challenge our air forces, as the Iraqis and Serbians were. Further, we should not penalize the U.S. Air Force for being ``without peer'' in the world by not funding the technology to keep them there in the future. It is incumbent upon Congress to ensure that when the next adversary we face decides to fight, and not run away, our pilots are equipped with the aircraft and the technology that will allow continued dominance in the air. I would like to read an excerpt from a statement written by seven former Secretaries of Defense, men who were chosen to lead our nation's armed forces, and whose commitment to national security is without question. These men, William Perry, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, all comprehend the importance of preserving American command of the air and state: It is not enough to say that something better may be available in the future. Something better is always available in the future. Serious threats to American air superiority may arise sooner, and the nation's security cannot tolerate a loss of command of the air. Congress and the Administration must focus on this fundamental reality, and fully fund the nation's only truly stealthy air superiority fighter. That fighter is the F-22 Raptor. Secretary of Defense Cohen stated last week that, ``The proposed cut jeopardizes our future warfighting capability and will place our forces at higher risk.'' He went on to say that he could not accept a defense bill that kills this cornerstone program. A pretty powerful statement from the man who has been chosen to lead our armed forces today and into the millennium. Let me also point out Mr. Chairman, that this is not simply an Air Force program. This fighter provides the basis for all joint warfighting in the future. Why? No U.S. soldier has been killed by hostile air power in over forty years. In order to assure that we provide our Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force ground personnel this same level of protection, we must provide for the future of air dominance today. We must be far-sighted in our modernization efforts and cutting of $1.8 billion from the F-22 account is myopic, at best. I'll close by saying that it's interesting to note that the $1.8 billion spent on the F-22 Raptor this year is equivalent to roughly 10 hours' worth of Federal spending. In my mind, a bargain to bring air dominance to our nation's armed forces in the future. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the funding level for the F-22 Raptor that was passed in the House Defense Authorization Bill and the other Chamber's Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills. The time is now.

Mr. GIBBONS

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Simply put, this amendment will help protect our American children from international parental child abduction. It is an inconceivable but irrefutable fact that once a child is taken from the United States, it is nearly impossible to get that child returned. One of the most difficult and frustrating experiences for parents of internationally abducted children is that U.S. laws and court orders are not usually recognized in foreign countries and therefore are not entitled or enforceable actions abroad. Even when criminal charges have been filed against the abducting parent in the United States, many foreign nations will not honor a U.S. request for extradition. It is therefore imperative that any measure we take must be preventive, for once these children are taken out of the country, they are often gone forever. The aim of this amendment is prevention, prevention of anguish to families, prevention of the violation of parental rights, prevention of international child abduction. These children are often abducted during or shortly after a contentious divorce, sometimes by an abusive parent. At a time when these children are most vulnerable and most uncertain about their future, they are snatched and taken away to a foreign country. Let me tell a story, Madam Chairman, of Mikey Kale from my home State of Nevada for whom this amendment is named. On Valentine's Day in 1993, then 6-year-old Mikey was abducted by his biological father and kidnapped to war-torn Croatia. Mikey's father and mother were divorced at this time. His mother had sole legal custody of Mikey. His father did not. But Mikey's father was still able to get a passport for his son even though he did not have any legal custodial rights. Thankfully, after a number of weeks and months and tremendous emotional and financial effort, Mikey's mother was able to get Mikey returned home. Mikey's mother, Barbara, had this to say about her family's ordeal: I learned through the State Department in Washington that my ex-husband had obtained a passport and birth certificate for Mikey within weeks of the divorce. I didn't think a person could get a passport for their child unless they had legal custody. I was wrong. Mikey's mother goes on to say that this one law needs to be revised to help protect American children. Madam Chairman, I am here to say that Mikey's mom is right. This law needs to be revised. It needs to be changed to protect our American children. We need to make it more difficult for would-be parental child abductors to obtain passports for children to prevent their further goal of taking young children out of this country. My amendment is a simple legislative solution which will implement a system of checks and safeguards prior to the issuance of a passport for the first time issuance to a child under the age of 14. We who are parents and grandparents know that we are the ones who are looked upon as protectors by our children. This is a common-sense legislative solution to a devastating and tragic problem. And this problem is more common than you would think. Each year, more than 1,000 children are abducted and then taken out of the United States to foreign countries. Here in the United States where our missing and abducted children are counted meticulously inside our borders, it is still hard to track the number of children who are taken overseas because only 45 nations have signed a Hague treaty designed to resolve international child custody disputes. Mikey Kale is one of the fortunate ones. Most children are not. Regardless of the number of cases, whether it is 10 or 10,000, one case of international child abduction is too many, and my amendment seeks to prevent that tragedy from occurring. I ask my colleagues to help me join in this effort to protect the Mikey Kales out there. Until more can be done, I believe this is the simplest, most cost-effective legislative solution to protect our children's rights and their lives. I would ask all my colleagues to join with me. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, each year more than 1,000 of America's children are abducted and taken out of the United States to foreign countries by noncustodial parents. One such child, Mikey Kale from Nevada, was abducted by his biological father and taken to war-torn Croatia. Mikey was just 6 years old at the time and his parents were recently divorced. Their divorce decree gave sole legal custody to Mikey's mom, but his father, who had visitation but no custodial rights, was able to obtain a passport for Mikey and subsequently and successfully abduct him, kidnapping him to Croatia. Fortunately, Mikey Kale made it back to his mom. Yet, it is an inconceivable but irrefutable fact that once a child is taken from the U.S., it is nearly impossible to get that child returned. Clearly, prevention is the key for protecting our children from international parental child abduction. I have an amendment today on the floor to help safeguard against these family tragedies, an amendment to make it more difficult for would-be child abductors to obtain passports for children by ensuring certain requirements are met before the issuance of a passport for a child under the age of 14. I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of this amendment, an amendment to protect America's children.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise on a special occasion as the members of the Nevada International Guard 152nd Intelligence Squadron, activated to support Operation Allied Force, will be returning home today. While activated, the unit members provided their years of experience in intelligence-gathering, assisting with the analysis of reconnaissance imagery and battle damage assessment. The analysts' primary focus was analyzing all the images acquired by the ``Predator'' Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and some imagery from the U-2. The unit was called on because of the reputation and experience it acquired from over 30 years in the reconnaissance and intelligence arena. Flying various aircraft, the images it gathered on its missions were processed, interpreted and then fed back to the theater for mission planning and battle damage assessment. The Intelligence unit was previously deployed during the Persian Gulf War where its products were used throughout the war for evaluating the effectiveness of the missions and planning. On behalf of myself and the State of Nevada, I would like to welcome our troops home. Job well done.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, no doubt many of us find it very disturbing that at the same time that Congress is spending billions of taxpayer dollars for thousands of vague Government programs, a number of our more liberal colleagues would vote to destroy the jobs of hard-working minors and families across the United States. It is truly a perplexing and even sad time for my constituents in this Congress. Paradoxically, many of my colleagues give millions of dollars away to someone who can study the mating habits of fruit flies and yet at the same time vote for an amendment that would effectively take the food off the tables of thousands of hard-working families in Nevada and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to tell these families is, why would Congress do this? What will I tell them? Tell them that they and half of their community lost their jobs so that a small handful of hikers did not have to see a mine on their bird watching hike? I would like to remind my colleagues that a majority of mining States have a cleaner environmental bill of health than most nonmining States in this country. Also, the millions of dollars in tax dollars paid by mines across the country rule out the ``free ride'' argument that some of my colleagues would suggest. Mr. Speaker, sound science and common sense should rule this Congress, not the extremist environmental groups who prey on public emotion.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with great honor to pay tribute to the Air Force Sergeants Association, a private, not-for- profit organization that diligently represents this Nation's active and retired enlisted men and women of the United States Air Force and their families. I would like to commend the Air Force Sergeants Association for their extraordinary efforts informing Congress on key personnel and readiness issues and also for promoting programs and policies which recognize the sacrifices of our ``Sierra Hotel'' Air Force enlisted members. This year, from August 29 through September 3, the Air Force Sergeants Association will convene its annual international convention at the Silver Legacy and Eldorado Hotels in Reno, Nevada. As an Air Force veteran, who knows firsthand the outstanding contributions of our enlisted force, I will be proud and honored to celebrate this occasion with them. Mr. Speaker, for 38 years, the Air Force Sergeants Association has been an outspoken advocate for Air Force enlisted members, and I thank them for their wonderful efforts. I also want to thank the enlisted men and women from every service who truly are the backbone and soul of our fighting forces.