Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

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

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), and I would like to thank them for their leadership on this very important matter, important to all Americans. I want to remind my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), that I am sure his support for bringing a bill of this magnitude or the magnitude of the other amendment offered by his colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), before the committee would be very important prior to bringing it to the floor, as well. I urge my colleagues here to support this amendment that would protect States' rights and ensure that the Federal government allows and follows the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The passage of the Weldon-Barr amendment will stop the Department of the Interior from implementing regulations that will erode these rights. On January 22, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, unilaterally made a decision that stripped the States of most of their fundamental rights under IGRA. Secretary Babbitt promulgated new regulations that gave him sole approving authority over Indian gaming, despite the objections of Governors and States, even over the unanimous opposition of the people in those States. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to it by the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. However, Secretary Babbitt again is trampling on these rights and taking them from Members' States and Members' Governors. The presence of casinos has commonly evoked among States very strong feelings and requires decisions to be made at the State level, not here in Washington, D.C. Currently the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows our Governors to negotiate with Indian tribes regarding the construction of Indian casinos on reservations. Secretary Babbitt wants to take away our Governors' authority in that area, and the Secretary further wants that authority himself to decide whether gaming will be allowed in any State, and which types of gaming will exist. If we want Indian casinos, great. If we do not, we and our Governors should have the authority to protect our States' rights and stop what could potentially become a very serious issue. Protect States' rights and let States make their own decision on Indian gaming. Stop the Secretary from taking what is not his to take. This is truly an issue of States' rights, because these regulations are inconsistent with current Federal law. The Department of the Interior has exceeded that authority granted under IGRA by issuing a regulatory remedy on a matter that both Congress and the Supreme Court have stated should be determined by the States. Last month the federally appointed National Gambling Impact Study Commission issued their 2-year study and among the sweeping recommendations that they made included that ``tribes, States and local communities should continue to work together to resolve issues of mutual concern rather than relying on Federal law to solve problems for them.'' The study also recommended that Congress should specify constitutionally sound means of resolving disputes between States and tribes regarding Class III gaming. Further, the Federal commission recommended that all parties to Class III negotiations should be subject to an independent impartial decisionmaker who is empowered to approve compacts in the event a State refuses to enter into a Class III compact. However, this should happen only if the decisionmaker does not permit any Class III games that are not available to other citizens of that State and only if the effective regulatory structure is corrected. Clearly, the Secretary of the Interior is not an impartial decisionmaker on this issue as he has a fiduciary duty to protect and act on behalf of tribal rights. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weldon-Barr amendment and prevent this power grab by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as well. It is true, if we look at the statute that was proposed by the gentleman from Washington up there, it is specific as to the size of it, but it does not restrict it to only a single claim. It allows for a millsite to be attached to and contiguous to a mining claim, but the millsite is only 5 acres.

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the comment of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), only because, if one looks at the law and one interprets it from a reasonable person's standard, it says a single 5-acre millsite. But it does not limit the number. Five acres was there because they did not want to have more property used than was necessary. One can go out and get a number of 5-acre millsites if it needs more than one. That is the purpose and that is what the practice has been. To restrict it to a single 5-acre millsite, as the gentleman is attempting to do with his amendment, would say to them that they can no longer have the room to put the excess waste from a 20-acre claim on more than one 5-acre parcel, which then has the effect of shutting down every mine, because it is retroactive according to the language the gentleman has got. It will go back, and it will destroy an industry that has long been one that has produced the quality of life that we have today.

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, it says here clearly, ``each location.'' Every millsite is a location. It is not the totality of it. Every mining claim is a location. So they can have five locations.

Mr. GIBBONS. It does not restrict it.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Rahall amendment to the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Act. This amendment 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 fifty permits. The mine qualified for their federal permit after spending $80 million and waiting over seven 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. The Rahall amendment 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. This amendment should be defeated and the Solicitor should be required to seek a congressional change to the law or 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 amendment will 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 opposes 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 so 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 vested 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 the Rahall amendment. 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 Rahall amendment and support common sense on our public lands.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment. I want to bring it back into a little bit of focus, if I can. It has been a long time since I was in the third grade and when I learned basic volumetric analysis about what we can do and what we cannot do. One thing my parents always told me is, one cannot put 10 pounds in a 5-pound bag. Here we have got a 20-acre load claim, 20-acre site, and now we are restricting it to 5 acres, attempting to take most of the material off of a 20-acre area and put it into a 5-acre parcel. That is an impossibility. It is physically impossible. It has to be understood. But other than that, let me say that I rise to oppose this amendment for several reasons, one of which, it is going to allow a Solicitor, it is going to put law behind an opinion that was not a final judicial opinion. There has been no debate on this. It did not come through the committees. There was no debate on the merits of this issue. There was no hearing on this. It suddenly appeared from the dark of night, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has said, and now it is before us. There has been no public input on this measure, all for the purpose of destroying a mining industry. I want to say that, in March of this year, the Solicitor at the Department of Interior reinterpreted a long-standing provision of the law, then relied on his new interpretation to stop a proposed gold mine in the State of Washington. Well, this proposed gold mine has gone through a comprehensive environmental review by Federal and State regulators which was upheld by a Federal district court. They had met every, and I repeat, every environmental standard required and secured over 50 permits to operate. The mine qualified for their permits after spending $80 million of their money and waiting 7 years to get into operation. The local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service officials informed this mine and their sponsors that they, in fact, had qualified for the permit, and they should come to their office to receive it. It was then noted that the Solicitor in Washington who intervened used his novel interpretation of the law to reject the permit. The Rahall amendment is cleverly designed to codify this administrative reinterpretation. This interpretation has been implemented without any congressional oversight, as I have said, or rulemaking, which would be open for public review and input and comment on this proposal. This was a calculated effort to give broad discretion to the Solicitor to stop mining projects that met all environmental standards; and yet we are opposed by environmental extremists and special interest groups. This amendment should be defeated, and the Solicitor should be required to seek out a congressional change in the law or either a formal rulemaking, giving the impacted parties an opportunity to comment on the change. If allowed to stand, this Interior Department 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 investments throughout the West. This amendment will destroy the domestic mining industry, and with the price of gold at $257, not near $300, $257, which is a new 30-year low, the second largest industry in my State will cease to exist. I think Congress must pay attention if it is intending to put industries, valid industries, legal industries out of business. If the Secretary or his Solicitor has problems with the United States mining law, then they 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 those laws that we enact here in Congress. Congress has to approve whether or not they agree with the laws. It is the duty of the government in a democracy to deal honestly with its citizens, not cheat them. As the Wall Street Journal stated recently, and I quote: ``If the Solicitor's millsite opinion is allowed to stand, investment in the United States will be as risky as Third World Nations.'' The International Union of Operating Engineers oppose the Rahall amendment on the basis that, if it passed, it will force the continued loss of high-paying jobs in the U.S. that are directly or indirectly related to the industry. These are many blue collar jobs in every congressional district we have in the United States. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives the people control over the laws that govern them by requiring that statutes be affirmed personally by legislators and the President elected by the people. Majorities in the House and the Senate must enact laws, and constituents can refuse to reelect legislators who have voted for a bad law. Many Americans no longer believe that they have government by and for the people. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment very strongly.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) yield?

Mr. GIBBONS. What the gentleman is reading from is the opinion of the solicitor which limits it, versus the statute which is on the board. There is no limitation as to the number.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, the manual interprets the law.

Mr. GIBBONS. If the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) will continue to yield, that is not the understanding, not according to the law. And I will read to the gentleman from the BLM manual.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the basis of our Nation's mining laws was enacted on May 10, 1872. Over the years, this law has become probably the most misrepresented statute on the books today. This land tenure law governs access to public lands for mineral exploration and specifies the conditions under which title to mineral deposits can be obtained once they are discovered. The 1872 law primarily affects the 12 western States in this Nation, and these 12 States account for 75 percent of the minerals produced and more than 92 percent of the public land of this Nation. Before Congress enacts any significant new policies, we must carefully consider the effects and consequences that could adversely affect this valuable industry and dramatically reduce the quality of life for all Americans, which would further destroy tens of thousands of high-paying jobs if not done correctly. The mining industry is already in danger due to an unending mudslide of Federal regulations, fees, and needless bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the point where we need to begin helping the mining industry instead of trying to eliminate it.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, over the next few weeks I will be bringing to our colleagues and the Chair's attention the value and necessity of a strong mining industry in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, nearly everything we eat, touch, wear, use, or even live in is made possible by the mining industry. Minerals comprise the basic necessities of life. Mineral-based fertilizers make possible the food we eat and the natural fibers in our clothes. From the concrete foundation, to the wallboard, pipes, and wiring, all the way up to the shingles on the roof, the construction industry utilizes minerals for building our homes. Mr. Speaker, minerals, made possible through the mining industry, are essential for agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. The United States is one of the world's leaders in the production of important metals and minerals, and it is imperative that we maintain a strong mining industry, and remain competitive with other nations for scarce investment of capital. Many investors have already left the United States for Latin America and Asia, where they are not faced with endless delays regarding Federal proposals, permits, expensive fees, and all sorts of other bureaucratic red tape. Mr. Speaker, it is in our Nation's best interests to keep our mining industry strong.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Nevada is one of the largest gold producing States in the Nation, but this vital industry, which helps put food on the table for thousands of my constituents in Nevada is in jeopardy. Last Friday, the International Monetary Fund, also known as the IMF, reaffirmed its commitment to dump part of its gold reserves onto the open market just to hide its debt losses. The bureaucratic dreamers at the IMF contend that this sell-off is necessary to give financial help and relief to poor countries. While that may sound okay on the surface, I am here to talk about reality. The reality of this proposed gold sale is the disruption of the global gold market, which translates into a flooded market, which translates into plummeting gold prices; and the reality is that many of the mines in North America will begin closing at an alarming rate. This means thousands of America's hardest working men and women will be out of work, unable to feed their families, all because of the IMF. Fortunately, the final decision does not rest with the international bureaucrats at the IMF. This proposed IMF gold sale must be approved by Congress. My constituents are depending on Congress to stop this ill-conceived scheme. I adamantly oppose and am committed to stopping this proposed giveaway and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. GIBBONS

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

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Interior has issued a policy that requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act prior to the renewal or transfer of any livestock grazing permits. Well, the Department now also requires that the Bureau of Land Management complete an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prior to this grazing permit reissuance or transfer. If any of these studies are challenged by some extremist special- interest groups or if the analyses are not complete before the permit or lease expires, the permittee is kicked off the allotment without recourse even if the range is in excellent condition. Completing these analyses and implementing the resulting decisions will likely take many, many years. During those years, the permittee will be excluded from the allotment, essentially destroying their livelihood, and bankrupting another family business. The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that NEPA applies to ``a major Federal action significantly impacting the quality of the human environment.'' The Department of Interior has not explained why a simple paper transaction requires years of study. The Secretary of Interior is attempting to destroy the ranching industry and is assaulting generations of families who have nurtured and cared for our public lands. Such unreasonable regulation is the death of all good business.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, the absolute greed of the Federal bureaucracy is pushing aside the common sense of local people on an issue in my district. I would like to share with my colleagues what can only be termed as an insensitive approach to a very personal and private situation of the Federal Agency Forest Service in my home State of Nevada. In its seemingly endless battle over public lands in rural Nevada, once again we are under siege by the Forest Service. But it is not commercial real estate or high market value land interests that we are after, it is about a mere two-acre cemetery. The Forest Service wants to sell the small town of Jarbidge, Nevada, two acres to buy its own cemetery where the parents and grandparents of this small rural town have been laid to rest since the beginning of this century. The Federal Government already owns nearly 90,000 square miles of Nevada's lands. Nevadans are not asking for much, a mere two acres to be exact, a two-acre cemetery already occupied for nearly a century by parents and grandparents of many Nevadans. On behalf of the families of Jarbidge, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1231 to convey these two acres out of the millions they own. Where I Stand--Mike O'Callaghan: USFS Picks New Fight (Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor) About the time it appears there is some justice and common sense ruling northeastern Nevada, along comes another goofy act. A couple of weeks ago this column praised the Nevada Supreme Court for settling a dispute started three years ago by a few Elko County residents who saw a conspiracy under every rock in that huge area. After using and abusing the power of a local grand jury the district judge was slapped and four state employees were given back their lives by the Supreme Court. That whole mess was started by a businessman who believed the state and federal conservation agencies were conspiring to destroy the county when acting to protect the environment. He wrote a letter to the county commissioners calling for a grand jury because the conservation agencies, especially the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service, and environmental groups were ruining almost everything held dear by the people of that area. Those suffering economically, according to the writer, were the ranching, mining, and business communities and all of the taxpayers. The grand jury was called and it acted as wild as the charges made in the letter. While all of this was going on, the U.S. Forest Service sat on its hands and took no action to replace a road damaged by a flood in 1995. This resulted in the county going to fix the road running alongside the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. Immediately another federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, came unglued because it said the roadwork was hurting the bull trout habitat. Eventually this mess was calmed down and on the surface appears straightened out because the state also had a role to play. So now everything is hunky-dory between the federal conservation agencies and Elko County? Not really. There's the small issue over cemetery land at Jarbidge. Yes, a very small two acres that Rep. Jim Gibbons wants turned over to the county. Here are Gibbon's words before a subcommittee in Washington last week: ``As you may know Jarbidge is a small, rural community in Elko County, Nevada. Known historically for its contribution to Nevada's mining industry, this community is surrounded by national forest lands and the Jarbidge Wilderness Area. ``Within this area is a small cemetery, under administration of the Forest Service, where generations of residents of this historic community have been laid to rest. ``The earliest tombstones are dated in the very early 1900s, and some members of the Jarbidge community claim that this land has been used as a cemetery long before its designation 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 responsibility, the residents of Jarbidge have long expressed an interest in having two acres, containing the cemetery, conveyed to the county so they might have a permanent, private cemetery. ``Madame Chairman, that is why I have introduced HR 1231, a bill that would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately two acres of National Forest lands to Elko County, Nevada, or continued use as a cemetery.'' No problem for this small request coming from a state with thousands of square miles controlled by the federal government. Guess again. USFS Deputy Chief Ron Stewart testified against HR 1231 because his agency expects to be paid fair market price of those two acres. His testimony doesn't describe how you put a price on a cemetery that's just a bit less than 100 years old. What it does reveal is a petty attitude by a large federal agency that continues to result in even its rational decisions being questioned by the people in and around little Jarbidge. Gibbons could hardly believe Forest Service officials were making the demand but it they were, he added, they ``should hang their heads. These people are asking for a cemetery, not for land to build commercial or residential enterprises. . . . '' Because of the actions of Elko's runaway grand jury I began to wonder what was in the water the jurors were drinking. This most recent action by the Forest Service in Washington has convinced me that its decision makers are drinking straight from the polluted Potomac River.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as a life member of Post 3819 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nevada, I rise today to express my strongest support of House Joint Resolution 34 commending the 100 anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Honoring the dead by helping the living has been the VFW motto, and a lasting call to the 2 million members who help and honor those deserving veterans because of the service and commitment they gave to this country. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States traces its roots back to Columbus, Ohio, on September 29, 1899, nearly 100 years ago. And because of this, House Joint Resolution 34 calls upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 100th anniversary of the VFW, and would call upon the people of the United States to also observe the anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and celebrations. Recognition of military service and remembrance of the sacrifices made in the Nation's defense are among the major purposes of the VFW. Therefore, it is only fitting that this Congress, the very body that makes the decisions of war, should honor the veterans of foreign wars. To the VFW, I salute them for their honor, their valor, and their continued achievements. God bless them.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to the Constitution, the people of the United States declared that one of the purposes of having a Constitution was to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our children would be to pass meaningful tax relief, letting people keep more of what they earn means that their standard of living will go up. It means that people can better save and provide for their families, better save for their children's education and maybe even better save for their own retirement. The Constitution speaks of providing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity and reducing death taxes means that family farms can stay in the family, and the family business can remain in the hands of the people who built it. I urge my colleagues to support the tax relief bill when it comes before the House. I think that is in the best interests of our Constitution and our people and their posterity.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Veterans' Affairs marked up H.R. 2280, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1999. I would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues of a very important provision of this much-needed bipartisan legislation for our Nation's veterans. That provision is the expansion of the fund- raising authority of the American Battle Monuments Commission to expedite the establishment of the World War II memorial in our Nation's Capital. This memorial, to one of this Nation's greatest generations, is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, of the 16 million Americans that answered their Nation's call to duty and sacrificed to protect humanity against tyranny and aggression, fewer than 7 million are alive today. We are losing them at the rate of 1,000 of these courageous veterans each and every day. We cannot wait if we are to honor these great men and women while they are still with us. I encourage all Americans to donate what they can to the World War II memorial and my colleagues to support this important legislation. It is truly time to say thank you and to provide a permanent tribute and inspiration so future generations of Americans will be reminded of the sacrifices that were necessary to preserve the freedoms and opportunities that we enjoy today.