Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise proudly in support of House Joint Resolution 54, to prohibit the desecration of the American flag. I want to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. John Murtha), for reintroducing this tremendously important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, more than one million men and women have sacrificed their lives defending this country and the freedom that this flag represents, and it would be a great dishonor for all of us now to turn our backs on those who gave so much to protect the American flag and what it symbolizes. We must fight for them now in protecting the symbol of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of both the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars, I proudly support this legislation, and I urge every member of this great, august body to do the same.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, a new category of beast has come to plague and menace the American scene. That beast, of course, is H.R. 45, a bill that intends to ship 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste, the most dangerous, toxic substance known to mankind, across this Nation into my home State of Nevada. I say to my colleagues, your communities will not be spared from playing host to this transportation of high-level nuclear waste. In fact, if my colleagues vote in favor of H.R. 45, they will have voted to endanger the very constituents that they were sent here to protect and represent, because a vote for H.R. 45 is a vote to open the floodgates to transport nuclear waste from over 100 nuclear reactors through their communities and neighborhoods. A vote to support H.R. 45 makes my colleagues responsible forever for the dire consequences that will inevitably occur when a mobile Chernobyl has an accident causing untold devastation. Protect your districts. Represent your families. Represent your constituents. Oppose H.R. 45.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the program and the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the two Members representing the House of Representatives at the wreath-laying ceremony at the Washington Monument for the observance of George Washington's birthday on Monday, February 22, 1999, be inserted into today's Congressional Record.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we often hear a lot about what Washington bureaucrats want to do about our children's education, but let me tell you what my Governor is doing about education at the State level. Last month, in his first State of the State Address, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn announced a bold and innovative plan to improve Nevada's high school dropout rate. In this plan, every Nevada high school student will receive a scholarship to a Nevada college or university based on scholastic achievement of maintaining a B average. The Millennium Scholarship plan will help motivate Nevada's students to seek higher education and better opportunities. When Governor Guinn visited high schools recently, many students expressed excitement over this proposal, and that is our responsibility, to make these students excited about their education. This scholarship program by our Republican governor will change the landscape for educating Nevada's students by creating opportunities that never before existed.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of February 12, 1999, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, unless the House sooner receives a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 27, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, the issue of nuclear waste is simply one of the safety. H.G. Wells once said that human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. Let me say that nothing in the history of mankind has withstood the test of time and the construction of 10,000 years. What was state-of-the-art technology and engineered safe as late as 1970 has often been shown and proven to be an unsafe solution today. Americans should never allow short-term safety issues that are as serious as nuclear waste to become long-term problems hundreds of years from now. I believe that standards based on sound science, along with the protection, the safety and the welfare of this Nation's citizens, should be the fundamental threshold when we address nuclear waste storage. H.R. 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, will mandate upon the State of Nevada and this Nation the most environmentally egregious and deadly decree, a death sentence that preempts the National Environmental Policy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and any other Federal, State, or local laws that may be inconsistent with this bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 45.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, most of us see earthquakes in real tangible terms: A natural disaster, an unpredictable violent force of nature that mankind has been trying to predict, and outwit, for centuries. We see earthquakes as a cause of billions of dollars worth of structural destruction and the cause of death for untold thousands of people. It seems now that the scientists over at the Department of Energy are seeing earthquakes in other terms. Now they are just ``part of the plan,'' part of the plan to ``hasten the process,'' I quote, to cover up high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Folks, Yucca Mountain is the heart of 32 known earthquake faults, just hundreds of feet from our groundwater levels, and just miles away from the homes of thousands of Nevada residents. Boy, talk about con men and city slickers. For the better part of a century, DOE has been trying desperately to fit a square peg in a round hole, knowing they are unable to develop structures that can withstand the crushing force of earthquakes. Now they are telling us they are trying to cash in on the destructive power of earthquakes. I guess that means that the mountain, when it collapses, will help coverup the waste. That is unbelievable. Albert Einstein once said, ``There are only two truly infinite things, the universe and stupidity. And I am unsure about the universe.'' Mr. Speaker, to store nuclear waste at a hot bed of earthquakes in Nevada is stupidity, and I am doubly sure about that.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, last year I and many of my colleagues expressed our concerns over the growing missile threat to the United States. Chief among those concerns was the administration's lack of resolve to deploy a National Missile Defense system. Surprisingly, though, the North Korean launch of a Taepo Dong missile in August of last year was a wake-up call for this administration and for America as well, because portions of this missile landed off the coast of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the threat is here and it must be countered. I applaud the dedication of $6.6 billion in the administration's budget and the commitment to deploy viable National Missile Defense. I am proud to be a part of this effort and, based on my own experience in the Gulf War with these terror weapons, I will fight to ensure that no American citizen will ever be confronted with a Taepo Dong missile or any other terror missile. Mr. Speaker, with all the uncertainties in our world, for our children, for our grandchildren, we must strengthen our national security and protect our precious country. I encourage all Members to help protect America. Let us pass H.R. 4, because a national missile defense is something we cannot live without.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, do you know that the American taxpayers have spent to date $6.5 billion over the last 15 years? You may think this money was spent on new schools for our children, a better military or a down payment to save Social Security. Nope. Sorry. You may hope the money was spent to give tax cuts to hard working men and women of this country or it was spent on needy families to ensure people move from government reliance and to work with self respect. Sorry again. Mr. Speaker, this money was used for nothing more than to dig a hole in the ground, $6.5 billion dollars, and according to the GAO, the Department of Energy has spent more than $6.5 billion to dig a hole large enough to bury the nuclear industry's high level radioactive garbage. Even more perplexing is that they are over 12 years behind schedule trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Americans know that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to put the shovel down and stop digging. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 45 and let this money be spent on programs that actually benefit this country.

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, the Republican agenda for the new Congress includes a middle class tax relief package, education improvements, saving Social Security and reforming that worthy cause, and a more effective, more efficient military. Our agenda includes across the board tax cuts which means that anyone who pays Federal income taxes will get a tax cut. It includes education, legislation which will put more money into the classroom and less money into the pockets of an education bureaucracy here in Washington. It will include bipartisan Social Security reform so that seniors are protected, the soon-to-retire will get the benefits they have been promised and younger workers will have a system there for them when they retire as well. It will include funding for the construction of a national missile defense system so that America will be safe from rogue nations who apparently are not impressed in the least bit that we have an ABM treaty with the Soviet Union, a country which thanks to Ronald Reagan no longer exists. It is an agenda that benefits all Americans and it is an agenda that rewards hard work, protects seniors, better educates our children and keeps America safe.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the month of January of this year has already come and gone. In just that one month, there have been seven major earthquakes in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is a site where this city's powerful nuclear waste lobbyists want to bury their nuclear waste. This should not be a surprise, however, because Yucca Mountain, you see, is a mountain. It is not geologically stable. In fact, it is a mountain that is tectonically active. Jerry Szymanski, a former Department of Energy geologist, said seismic design for a facility to transfer nuclear waste canisters above ground at Yucca Mountain is not possible there. He said, with 32 faults in the area, the mountain is capable of a magnitude 8.5, folks, earthquake, and poses too many risks and variables to design seismic standards. Realize that one does not store nuclear waste in an area that ranks third in the country for seismic activity, an area that has more than 621 earthquakes in the past 20 years, and an area that had seven earthquakes in less than 30 days. Oppose H.R. 45, my colleagues. This could weigh heavily on my colleagues' souls.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, early on in the 106th session of Congress, in the first few weeks, we have already seen a disastrous bill introduced to establish a temporary nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. Several problems, Mr. Speaker, become very evident when this legislation is examined. First, it is moving nuclear waste from 109 reactor sites, which would traverse 43 States and endanger the lives of every person along these routes. Also, the geologic suitability of the site is in question. In the last 20 years there have been more than 621 earthquakes within a 50-mile radius of the proposed site. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a central interim storage facility like this will cost $2.3 billion, seven times more expensive than expanding the current on-site storage at these power generating facilities. The facts demonstrate some of the major problems associated with this bill: the safety of every American, and the fleecing of every taxpayer in this country. Educating the American people on issues as important as this should be every Member's responsibility, because they are the ones who will be held responsible for the devastating impacts on their districts.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a troubling and difficult time for America as well as for each and every one of us in this august body. The history of this Nation has clearly shown over the past that it is reluctant, as it should be, to remove any individual duly elected by a vote of the American citizens, and this is not an easy task. It is not one that is done with any joy. But it is my responsibility, along with everyone else in this room, and should be done with the material, the evidence and the charges brought to it. Like each of you, I take this very seriously. It is not my duty to judge this President nor the fate of his term in office. That is left to the United States Senate. The Committee on the Judiciary has brought charges to the full House of serious allegations against Bill Clinton, which include perjury, obstruction of justice and efforts to suborn perjury, serious charges which I have poured over, studied and reviewed and have come to the conclusion that they are true. They are in violation of the laws of this land, the laws that the President has sworn to uphold. To all of my colleagues, let me say that impeachment is the strongest form of censure in the United States. No person is above the law. For only the third time in the history of our nation, members of the United States House of Representatives are being asked to consider Articles of Impeachment against a sitting president. For only the second time in the history of our country, the Judiciary Committee has brought these charges to the full membership of the House of Representatives to consider and duly vote upon their merits. The history of our nation clearly demonstrates a reluctance, as it should, to remove any individual duly elected by the citizens of America. This is not an easy task. It is not done with any joy--but it is done with the knowledge that it is the responsibility of the United States House of Representatives to carry out the duties outlined by the framers of our Constitution. It is my responsibility, along with my colleagues, to decide what should be done with the material and evidence brought to it. I take this responsibility seriously: I take it with the full knowledge that our actions, as well as those alleged of our President, will be in the history books of our nation for hundreds of years. It is not my job to judge the President; the framers of our Constitution gave that role to the United States Senate. It is not my duty to ultimately decide the fate of this President's term in office; that, too, is the obligation of the United States Senate. It is however, my duty and responsibility to determine (1) if the charges brought before this body constitute impeachable offenses and (2) if sufficient evidence exists to warrant bringing the President to stand trial in the Senate on those charges. The Judiciary Committee has brought to the full House serious allegations against President Bill Clinton. They are allegations which include perjury, obstruction of justice, and efforts to suborn perjury on the President's part. Such actions are not simply ``personal wrongs.'' They are in violation of the laws of this land, the laws that the President has sworn to uphold. President Clinton has talked numerous times about the average American who works hard and plays by the rules. That is what this impeachment proceeding is about. In the United States, no person is above the law. Not the President, not myself, not the people who send us here. No one is above the law. I truly hate the idea of putting this country and its citizens through an impeachment proceeding. I know that the process distracts us from other duties. I know that casting a vote for impeachment is a serious and somber matter. However, the Constitution requires a specific course of action when charges like this are made and brought before the House of Representatives. Therefore, I must follow through with this because I believe it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, accusations of partisanship have clouded this process. But, clearly, the rule of law in our country is more important than any political party or any single individual, including the President of the United States. Moreover, I recognize that impeachment is never politically popular. But the day I let polls and popularity overrule my judgement and the way I vote is the day I leave Congress. Over 30 years ago, another President wrote a book titled ``Profiles in Courage'' about eight members of the Senate who didn't do the ``politically popular thing.'' The New York Times called his book ``A thoughtful and persuasive book about political integrity.'' Political integrity must win over political popularity. Over 130 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln certainly didn't do the ``politically popular thing'' when he signed the emancipation proclamation, but he did what was right and just for America. I am drawn to a quote that was made long ago by William Penn, who said: ``Right is right, even if everyone is against it. Wrong is wrong, even if every one is for it.'' And, just an importantly, my Mother always told me: ``The truth is the truth, a lie is a lie, and not for long do they exist side by side.'' Justice, like integrity, must always take precedence over popularity. The House Judiciary Committee has brought four Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton for the full House to decide. And throughout the course of this process I have judiciously and thoroughly reviewed all of the available evidence, researched the law, studied the Constitution, talked to legal scholars, attorneys and judges, and most importantly, listened to the constituents of the Second Congressional District of Nevada. Only after a great deal of reflection and thoughtful deliberation have I concluded that the following is the right course of action for the people I represent, the State of Nevada and the future of America: I will vote for Article 1 of the Impeachment Resolution, because there is sufficient evidence to believe that President Bill Clinton willfully provided false and misleading testimony to the grand jury and the United States Congress. And that his perjury undermined the integrity of the office of the President, brought disrepute on the Presidency, betrayed his trust as President, and subverted the rule of law and justice of the American people; and, I will vote for Article 3 of the Impeachment Resolution, because the evidence is sufficient to conclude that President Bill Clinton knowingly and wrongly encouraged witnesses to give false and misleading testimony, attempted to secure employment for a witness in order to prevent the truthful testimony of that witness, engaged in and supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed by a federal court. Through his conduct, President Bill Clinton attempted to obstruct justice in a manner subversive to the rule of law that has brought disrepute on the Presidency and undermined the integrity of his office; and, I will vote for Article 4 of the Impeachment Resolution, because there is substantial evidence that President Bill Clinton misused and abused his office in failing to respond, and by making false and misleading sworn statements in response to written requests as part of an authorized inquiry by the Congress of the United States. And that his misuse and abuse of his office and power has brought disrepute of the Presidency, betrayed his trust as President, subverted the rule of law and justice, all to the manifest injury to the people of the United States; however, I will not support, nor vote for Article 2 of the Impeachment Resolution, simply because I do not believe that the false and misleading testimony of President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit constitutes an impeachable offense as defined by the Constitution. The rule of law is paramount in America. Each and every one of us must abide by and play by the rules. It is my belief that there is sufficient evidence that clearly demonstrates this President has not. Therefore, I conclude, reluctantly that these charges should be considered by the United State Senate. This vote has not been an easy decision on my part. But, I was not elected to the United States House of Representatives to make the easy decision. However difficult this decision is, it is a vote I cast as a matter of conscience in the belief that no person is above the rule of law in our nation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have come before this body over 150 times to talk to my colleagues and the American public about what I see are some of the important issues that this country faces. Oftentimes my colleagues on the other side have repeatedly accused the Republicans of leading a ``do-nothing'' Congress. In one sense, I am very sorry to report that they are correct. This Congress has done nothing about our Nation's vulnerability to ballistic missile attack. Congress has failed to begin building a national missile defense system, a failure that is so inexcusable I will have to agree with my liberal Democratic colleagues, at least on this one point. The United States has a policy of deliberately remaining vulnerable to a missile attack. Instead of building a national missile defense system, we place our faith in a piece of paper called the ABM Treaty. Our national security depends, therefore, on tyrants, dictators, and international thugs to respect that piece of paper. Does anyone really believe that Saddam Hussein cares that we have signed an ABM treaty, a treaty with a country that no longer exists? Does anyone really believe that Mu'ammar Qadhafi will think twice about threatening the United States because we have signed the ABM treaty? Did Osama bin Laden reconsider his terrorist strikes against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania because we are signatories to the ABM Treaty? What good will the ABM treaty be against the Islamic bombs, weapons which will soon be in the hands of rogue nations whose citizens demonstrate against the great Satan by burning the American flag? Did North Korea step back from launching missiles into Japanese territory because America has signed an arms control agreement with a country that no longer exists? Mr. Speaker, this policy of deliberate vulnerability is dangerous, it is foolish, and it is counterproductive. What is also strange is that we already have a technology to deploy a missile defense system. The U.S. Navy's Aegis cruisers are equipped with the technology that can be converted into a national missile defense system at a minimal expense. The Navy has already spent billions of dollars perfecting the state-of- the-art system, and it defies logic to prevent that system from being developed to end our vulnerability to a missile strike. I do not understand why the other side refuses to take dangerous threats seriously. Must we always be surprised when the threat is upon us? How many times in history must we learn the hard way? How many more examples of rogue nations threatening the United States do we need to have before we wake up to the threats? Must the United States squander the technological edge that it has built up over the years with billions and billions of dollars for the sake of a meaningless arms control agreement? Mr. Speaker, although we have, in the recently passed budget, approximately $1 billion for some antiballistic missile research and development, the American people expect more. They deserve more, and failure to do so is a violation of the public trust. I might remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the preamble to the Constitution declares to all the world that ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense.'' Let us stop there, and provide for the common defense of this Nation, Mr. Speaker. Failure to build a national missile defense system immediately is a failure to provide for the common defense of America. Every single person in America will know it, but will they know it far too late to take advantage of it?

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as we end the 105th Congress, I think it is very important to understand that for the first time in a generation, Congress is about to adjourn with a budget surplus. When Republicans took control of this body, such an achievement would have seemed impossible. But for the first time in 16 years, this Congress gave the American people a tax cut. One could only wonder if tax cuts would have become a reality had the Republicans not taken control. Through the Tax Code Termination Act, this Republican-led Congress gave a promise to the American public that we will develop a fair, simpler and more honest tax system. It was this Republican-led Congress that provided a more accountable Internal Revenue Service which now places the burden of proof on the IRS rather than on the taxpayer in tax disputes. Furthermore, this body made a promise to our Nation's seniors, and we are working to save and secure Social Security well into the future. So when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to tell us that this is a do-nothing Congress, know that they are right. We did nothing to fulfill their agenda. We did not raise taxes, we did not increase budgetary red ink, and we did not ignore IRS abuses. Along with the American people I am proud that we did not follow the liberals and their 40-year controlled agenda of tax hikes and bigger government.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of the 105th Congress, I believe the American people have a rendezvous with destiny, and that destiny is to regain their freedom from big bureaucracy and big government and go more toward local control. Four years ago, the Republicans laid the foundation for a balanced Federal budget, real education reform, crime reduction, meaningful tax cuts, a strong military force, welfare reform, and a real commitment to saving Medicare and Social Security. Four years ago, Republicans charted a path to give Americans a renewed faith in our system of government, in our push to give Americans more control in their lives. Our hardworking families, our children, our men and women who serve in our Nation's armed forces are destined to reap the benefits of a Republican-led Congress that has made a commitment to put an end to wasteful bureaucratic spending, to send Federal education dollars directly to schools and districts and into the classrooms for the benefit of educating children; a commitment to give hard-earned tax dollars back to America's hardworking families; and a commitment to make the strength of our national defense a priority once again. Mr. Speaker, there is renewed hope for America and I am proud to be a part of this destiny of freedom.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Halloween is right around the corner, conjuring up all kinds of scary stories. Soon I will gather my children around me and tell them just what they might expect from Congress. Now, I am not talking about candy, trinkets or toys. What I am talking about is bringing home a commitment to a balanced Federal budget, real education reform, meaningful tax cuts, a strong military force and a real commitment to saving Social Security. There is one problem. My liberal colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather have me tell them the story of the headless horseman or a bloated bureaucracy, a hollow military force and more tax increases. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to go home with the liberals' view of Congress. Rather, we all want to go home with some great news for America's schoolchildren, for America's hardworking families, for the men and women who serve in our nation's armed forces, news that we are working for them, not some fat-cat bureaucrat here in Washington. To my liberal colleagues, I say this: Let us put an end to wasteful bureaucratic spending. Help us send Federal education dollars directly to the schools and to the classrooms for the benefit of educating children. Help us give back hard-earned tax dollars to America's hardworking families. Help us make the strength of our nation and our national defense a priority again. Trick or treat, Mr. Speaker. I yield back big government, scary stories, and the headless horseman point of view of my liberal colleagues.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, every year Republicans have been in charge we have increased spending on public schools. The gentleman knows this. But yet he says something differently. The strength of America's future depends upon the education of our children, not the Washington bureaucracy. Republicans have offered an education plan that would send $1.1 billion to our local school districts. This Republican education plan would empower our local communities to hire new teachers if they see fit, to reduce class sizes, to train special education teachers, to test teacher competency, purchase more books and supplies and allow for school repairs. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle should agree with the intent of this plan. The main difference boils down to this: How should we deliver the money. The beauty of the Republican plan is local control. This means 100 percent of this money will go directly to the classrooms, I repeat, directly to the classrooms, not to the fat-cat Federal bureaucrats or hollow Federal programs. Republicans believe education is best accomplished on a local level and decisions should be made on the local level.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the President yesterday sternly warned Republicans against ``squandering the surplus.'' Well, I presume that reference was to the first Federal budget surplus since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. I must say that the President and the liberal Democrats ought to know a lot about ``squandering the surplus,'' since they have been squandering taxpayers' money year after year after year. It is ironic that these very same people who believe that it is okay to lie to the American people would call anyone who advocates spending less that $1.7 trillion surplus an ``extremist,'' and they would feel qualified to lecture the U.S. about squandering money. It is ironic that these very same people who have proposed billions and billions of dollars in new programs would have the audacity to lecture Republicans about squandering money. It is ironic that these very same people who accuse Republicans of being mean-spirited for cutting their wasteful, counterproductive, bureaucratic programs now believe they should attempt to impart their wisdom about the evils of squandering money. Mr. Speaker, I yield back any balance of my time, feeling certain that the American public know the difference between Democratic spin and the truth.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who has been a strong advocate for the conservation and well treatment of America's public lands in a colloquy. The bill before us today, S. 1693, establishes a new plan for advertising and awarding concession contracts on National Park Service lands. However, the bill is silent with regard to continuing applicability of the priority of licensed blind vendors under the Randolph Sheppard Act of 1936. Mr. Chairman, does Senate 1693 intend in any way to repeal, waive, supersede or undermine the now existing Randolph Sheppard Act for blind business enterprise programs?

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the chairman for his clarification of this crucial point. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.