Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, incredible as it may sound, for the first 132 working days of this year, every penny earned by the hard-working men and women of Nevada did not go to pay for their kids' education, did not go to pay for their home mortgage, did not go to pay their medical insurance or expenses. Instead, it all went to this expanding government bureaucracy. Fully one-third of the year's effort of these hard-working Americans has been spent just to pick up the tab for the bloated government bureaucracy. Decades of unchecked growth and deficit spending by the liberal tax and spenders has left the hard-working men and women of this country with this demoralizing and crushing tax burden. The vast majority of Americans do not object to paying their fair share of taxes, but they do object to the suffocating level of taxation that exists under this administration. Arthur Godfrey put it best when he said, ``I'm proud to be paying taxes in the United States. The only thing is, I could be just as proud for half the money.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Republican proposal to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us allow hard- working families to keep more, not less, of their money.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for today all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials in that section of the Record entitled Extensions of Remarks.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering before the House today will compel the Secretary of Commerce to transmit any information that is requested by the Director of Central Intelligence, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and Designees of these three officials in a timely manner (defined as within 5 days of request) upon receiving a written request for such material. The information that these officials could request includes: export licenses and information on exports that were carried out under an export license by the Department of Commerce and information collected by the Department of Commerce on exports from the United States that were carried out without an export license. The amendment doesn't ask them to produce new data or collect additional information. It simply requires the Secretary of Commerce to provide the information that he maintains--as a part of his department's day-to-day mission--to these selected Executive Branch Secretaries to enable them to do their jobs of producing intelligence and protecting our nation. Mr. Chairman, until recently, I would not have believed that this body would have to mandate timely cooperation between Executive branch departments. However, when the defense of this nation and it's citizens is challenged or compromised--the time has come. The current situation with China and the transfer of satellite technology is in the news right now, but similar situations inside the administration are proliferating almost as quickly weapons of mass destruction are around the world. Let me share the example that focuses on the seriousness of the issue. In last year's defense bill, the National Security Committee recommended a study to assess the extent and the impact of the distribution of U.S. and allied supercomputers to China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya. The National Security Committee has been increasingly concerned about technology transfers of this type in recent years. The study would have assessed the effect of the technology transfers on the design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; weapons platforms; command and control communications; and financial, commercial, government and military communications. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Energy were assigned the task of conducting the analysis. However, they were unable to get any assistance from the Department of Commerce. They needed assistance from Commerce since Commerce is charged with the responsibility to control the export of sensitive technologies that have both military and civil applications. The Department of Commerce refused to cooperate for the entire period of the study. Only after pointed communications from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the National Security Committee, did they provide ``derivative'' data that was not usable for the analysis that had been requested. Mr. Chairman, it is not uncommon for our intelligence entities to have to go to other Executive Branch departments to collect ``raw'' information that they process into usable intelligence. It is a common requirement that has not presented a problem in the past. This ``stonewalling'' behavior by Commerce was unprecedented. While it was unprecedented, it was no less excusable! This was one Executive Branch department refusing to provide information to another Executive Branch department. I am at a loss to explain the difference between Commerce's response and the responses of the other Executive Branch departments. Did Commerce have something to hide or was there something else at play in this incident? Commerce's intransigence had national security implications and it is incumbent on us to ensure that our decisions are not affected by faulty information and analysis in the future! Our national security demands that the Congress and the President make decisions based on timely, accurate and truthful intelligence. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that our national security is not compromised in the future. Fiscal Year 1998 NDAA--Implications of Technology Transfer; ``A Case Study of the Stall'' July 15, 1997--The HNSC recommended a study be conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to study the distribution of United States and allied supercomputers to China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya to Assess the impact of Technology Transfers on: Nuclear weapons design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing chemical and biological weapon design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing; Design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing of major weapons platforms (tactical aircraft, cruise/ ballistic missiles, submarines); Anti-submarine warfare; command and control communications; intelligence collection, processing and dissemination; financial, commercial, government and military communications. December 10, 1997--Chariman Spence and ranking minority member Dellums requested the study of DIA and asked for a report by 2 March 1998. Chairman Spence and Mr. Dellums also asked the Department of Energy to conduct a review concentrating on the impact of high performance computer exports on the design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems. Early December 1997--The staffs of DIA and DOE submit oral requests for information from the Department of Commerce for all the info they have on supercomputers to the study target countries. The Department of Commerce is the executive agency with responsibility to control the export of sensitive technologies that have both military and civil applications. These oral requests were denied. December 22, 1997--The Director, DIA, LTG Patrick Hughes wrote to the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and requested that the Commerce Department supply the information on supercomputer exports. The Commerce Department finally responded on 3 February 1998. January 7, 1998--Chairman Spence and Mr. Dellums wrote to William Daley, Secretary of Commerce asking that the Department of Commerce provide the requested information to the DIA and DOE. February 3, 1998--Under Secretary of Commerce William Reinsch responded to the December 22 letter from DIA. Under Secretary Reinsch stated that Commerce would defer to the DCI on who should conduct the study that had been tasked to DIA and DOE. The CIA later attempted to transfer the requested information to the DIA and DOE but the Department of Commerce refused to allow such a transfer. March 3, 1998--The Director, DIA wrote the HNSC that he could not complete the study because he was not able to obtain the necessary information from the Department of Commerce. March 3, 1998--Chairman Floyd Spence of the House National Security Committee wrote to William Daley, Secretary of Commerce. Chairman Spence stated his understanding that the Department of Commerce had declined the DIA and DOE requests for information on supercomputer exports. Chairman Spence stated that, ``I find the prospect that information is being denied to intelligence agencies that are attempting to determine the effect of illicit exports on U.S. national security highly disturbing and believe such dilatory tactics are indicative of a cavalier attitude by your department on matters of national security.'' Chairman Spence again requested the personal assurance of the Secretary of Commerce that Commerce would cooperate fully with the requested intelligence review. March 3, 1998--the Secretary of Commerce responded to the January 7, 1998 letter from Chairman Spence and Ranking Minority Member Dellums. Secretary Daley's letter stated, ``the Department of Commerce has been in contact with the Director of Central Intelligence regarding this matter, and we intend to defer to his judgment on how to best proceed with respect to the conduct of the study.'' (See the entry for February 3, above.) March 9, 1998--the DIA and the DOE received ``derivative'' supercomputer export information from the Department of Commerce. April 30, 1998--the Director of the DIA wrote to Under Secretary of Commerce Reinsch thanking him for the ``derivative report'' on the export of high performance computers but stating that the information provided by Commerce ``does not provide the requisite data necessary to complete a comprehensive review.'' General Hughes asked Commerce to provide DIA with the raw export data obtained from U.S. supercomputer manufacturers so that DIA could conduct its own independent analysis. May 19, 1998--as of this morning, Commerce has not provided any additional information to DIA to enable them to complete the study. Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment today to address a vital national security issue. That issue is the failure of the Department of Commerce to provide complete and accurate information to our organizations that are charged with assessing threats around the globe. The need for analysis to have a flow of raw data to produce intelligence is as old as war itself. Skilled analysts sift through the bits and pieces of everyday trivia and find patterns that allows them to formulate an adversary's likely intentions. The Congress relies on the technical analysis of national intelligence resources. Last year, this Congress was concerned with the threat that was posed by the transfer of technology around the world. The National Security Committee requested a study addressing the impacts of past transfers. Mr. Speaker, I find it inexcusable that the study could not be completed because the Department of Commerce refused to work with the Departments of Defense and Energy on the study. The responsibility for controlling much of this technology was transferred by the administration to the Commerce Department last year, over the objections of both the Department of State and the Department of Defense. The recent nuclear tests in India; Pakistan's threats to conduct its own tests and the improper transfers of technology to the Chinese underscore the dangerous nature of our world today. We cannot allow ourselves to be forced to make decision with anything less than the best information and intelligence. We cannot allow executive branch departments to determine what information is important and what isn't. This amendment ensures that our intelligence community has access to vital information. Let's allow our analysts do their jobs! Vote yes on the Gibbons amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, America's favorite pastime, baseball, is upon us here in our Nation's Capital. However, the nuclear utility industry is striking out, and it seems they are becoming a backstop, rather than a leader for common sense. Recently Secretary Pena pitched a proposal of up to $5 billion for financial relief to utilities to cover on-site nuclear waste storage costs. Unfortunately, and yet to no one's surprise, the nuclear industry balked at the idea, even though the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the utility request ordering and directing the Energy Department to immediately begin accepting their nuclear waste. Here was a chance for all Americans to hit that home run by keeping this deadly waste on-site, rather than endangering the lives and health of citizens across this Nation, transporting it through their communities. But, once again, the nuclear industry is holding out for a bigger contract, just so they can pad their pockets. Mr. Speaker, the nuclear industry is trying to build an expensive taxpayer-paid expansion team, but Americans are not going to accept the unsafe and ridiculous curve balls this industry is throwing at America.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Americans awoke this morning with a number of new questions on their minds, beginning with why would the Clinton administration switch the responsibility for satellites from the Department of State to the Commerce Department? Both the State Department and Defense Department were against this move. They knew these communication satellites were one of America's most sensitive military and intelligence gathering technologies. Even the former Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, wrote to the President that these sophisticated communication satellites held technology secrets that could jeopardize, and I quote, ``significant military and intelligence interests of America.'' Was Secretary Christopher reluctant because he understood the importance of the built-in encryption equipment that interprets the ground controller's instructions; or was it because he knew that similar encryption systems were used to communicate with America's spy satellites? Did the Commerce Department in any way understand that anyone who could crack these codes could take control of these satellites themselves? Did anyone care? Was there some other issue driving this change? America deserves to know the answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall no. 156, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' personal explanation

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, last Thursday, Americans lost a great entertainer. In fact, many would say that Frank Sinatra was one of the greatest entertainers of our time. Indeed, Frank Sinatra loved Nevada, and Nevada loved Frank Sinatra. He was indeed perhaps the greatest entertainer to appear in any Nevada showroom; and, since his passing, many Americans have learned what Nevadans have known all along: Mr. Sinatra's heart was bigger than all outdoors. Next week in Las Vegas, celebrities from around the world will participate in a Frank Sinatra Las Vegas Celebrity Classic golf tournament. This event will benefit Opportunity Village in Las Vegas, a charitable organization which provides vocational training and continuing education to the mentally disabled. Frank Sinatra has always opened his heart and wallet to those in need. He did it his way; and, for that, Americans are extremely grateful to this international icon.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this morning, when Nevadans head off to work, they are going to have a little extra spring in their step and little lighter burden on their shoulders, because this fine morning, not only is the sun starting to peak through the clouds, but working men and women in Nevada are finally going to work for themselves, their families, their futures, and not the government. That is right, Mr. Speaker, today, May 13th, is Tax Freedom Day in Nevada. During 1998, so far Nevadans have worked 91 days, almost 3 months, to pay their Federal taxes, and an additional 41 days to pay their State and local taxes. The fact that these hard working men and women in this country have to spend nearly one-half of the year working to pay the government ought to concern, if not outrage, all of us in this room. Surely, not even the most liberal of my colleagues on the other aisle can defend this tax level. I call on my colleagues to join me in instituting common sense tax relief in this country. Let us begin by eliminating the marriage tax and the death tax as well. Let us start moving the process back, not forward.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. [From the Economist Newspaper Limited, May 13, 1998] The National Guard in a Brave New World Anything useful to do, besides fighting the army? It was one of the sweetest victories in the 350-year history of the National Guard. the citizen-soldiers of Nevada left their factories, farms and investment banks for a battlefield in California, where they disguised their American tanks as Russian T-80s and donned the colours of an imaginary country called Krasnovia. Within a few hours they had pierced the defences of the adversary, a mechanised brigade of full-time soldiers from Georgia (the American state, that is). Guardsmen across the nation rejoiced at their Nevadan comrades' success. They had given the Pentagon sceptics a bloody nose--and proved that ``weekend warriors'' are perfectly capable of engaging in full-scale armoured combat whenever Uncle Sam needs them. Unfortunately, not every battle in the relentless conflict between the full-time American army and the Army National Guard, a mostly part-time force with strong local roots, has such a rapid and decisive outcome. Most of the time, the two institutions are locked in an inconclusive war of attrition which makes it impossible for Pentagon strategists to use either of them effectively. Like everybody else who is competing for slices of the Pentagon's shrunken pie, each side in this argument dismisses its opponents as superannuated, cold-war relics. The swift, high-tech wars of tomorrow may have little place for the dentist or school-teacher who likes to drive tanks or fly helicopters as a hobby, according to the full-time army-- whose strength has been slashed by about 40%, to 495,000, since the Soviet collapse. Nonsense, retorts the National Guard, which has lost only 20% of its cold-war strength and numbers around 370,000. As the guard sees things, the huge regular army that was built to fight the Soviet Union and its allies was an aberration in American history. Now that the cold war is over, America should revert to reliance on the citizen-soldier, a concept which dates back to colonial times. ``Americans have always been suspicious of standing armies, ever since we fought the British redcoats,'' says a spokesman for the National Guard Association, one of the more formidable lobbies on Capitol Hill. To settle the matter, guardsmen point out that their position is safeguarded by the American constitution, which calls for the raising of militias ``to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.'' But full-time army commanders remain sceptical. The guard's eight combat divisions, its pride and joy, have been steadfastly excluded from any significant role in the army's plans to fight two regional wars (presumably in the Gulf and the Korean peninsula) simultaneously--the worst-case scenario on which much Pentagon thinking is based. In the guard's view, this exclusion is based on a self-serving calculation: the army would not be able to justify retaining ten combat divisions of its own if it admitted that the guard could also play an important role. As the army sees things, the Gulf war of 1991 proved its point: modern conflicts are too quick and deadly to have much place for troops that require 90 days or more to reach the proper state of readiness. The guardsmen allege, with real bitterness, that their combat brigades were kept out of the war even when they were well prepared. The deadlock is so intractable, and the mistrust so deep, that the entire process of adapting the military to a changing world is at risk of paralysis. The latest round of peace talks, convened in April by John Hamre, the deputy defence secretary, persuaded the guard that the Pentagon's civilian bosses do want a solution. But the part-timers remain intensely suspicious of the army. They insist that they are ready for painful changes, such as converting some of their heavy-armour divisions into lighter ones, but only if the army does the same. ``We are willing to change if the army is willing to change, but we cannot take them at their word,'' says Major-General Edward Philbin, director of the National Guard Association. Tensions increased a lot last year when the Pentagon published a quadrennial defence review that called for a cut of 40,000 in the guard's strength. Guardsmen muttered that the army had conspired against them; the army retorted that it was about time the guard bore its share of defence cuts like everybody else. Eventually the guard offered to accept a cut of 15,000 over three years, but only if the army recognised the guard's importance by signing up to 11 principles. Otherwise, all deals were off the table. The reason why the guardsmen feel able to take such a firm line is that they have extraordinary political clout. Because guardsmen are based in every part of the country, no lawmaker can afford to ignore them. They also have a natural constituency in the state governors, who rely on them to cope with riots, explosions and (especially in recent months) natural disasters. At least in peaceful times, the $5.5 billion which the Pentagon spends every year on maintaining the guard is a sort of transfer from Washington to the governors, who are gaining influence on several other fronts and are highly protective of their local troops. The net result is a stalemate--and intense frustration for the defence planners, who long to save money on army personnel (whether full- or part-time) and use it to buy high-tech weapons. The Pentagon says annual procurement spending must rise by about $20 billion, to $60 billion per year, by 2001 if America is to retain its military edge against all comers. But with every legislator determined to protect bases and guard units in his or her home district, it looks harder and harder to see how money can be freed for this shopping spree. In recent months, a new factor has emerged which could have a large, unpredictable effect on the stand-off between the army and the guard, and on the broader balance of power in the Pentagon. It is the belief among defence thinkers-- especially those not wedded to any particular bureaucratic interest--that domestic security risks may be rising at a time when the United States looks virtually unchallengeable overseas. In military jargon, this is the theory of ``asymmetrical threats''. It goes like this: no adversary in his right mind would try to match America's vast arsenal of tanks, ships or nuclear weapons. It makes far better sense for the enemy--be it a terrorist group, a rogue state, or a combination of both--to wage chemical, biological or even cyber-warfare against American society, exploiting its openness. There was, initially at least, much rejoicing among the guardsmen last year when the national defence panel, a group of experts with a mandate to review the country's military priorities, called for greater emphasis on countering poison gas or germ warfare attacks at home. The panel suggested that a Homeland Defence Command could be organised around the National Guard. But, on second thoughts, the guardsmen feel more cautious about the new defence thinking. Dealing with the ghastly consequences of a chemical or biological attack has always been part of their job, they point out. Governors would need them badly during the few crucial hours when the emergency was too serious for local police and fire services to cope and the federal authorities had not yet arrived. But the guard will strongly resist any changes to its structure that would compromise its ability to join the regular army on overseas combat missions. Since ``the army would love to turn us into a constabulary'' with purely local duties, the guard is bracing itself for a fresh bureaucratic fight, says General Philbin. In fact, the advent of ``asymmetrical threats'' may not suit the institutional interests of any of the Pentagon's quarrelsome soldiers. Consider how the lines of authority would shift in the event of a chemical or biological attack on Anytown, America. Once the emergency became too serious for the state government, responsibility for ``crisis management''--identifying the culprit and stopping further attacks--would shift to the FBI. The appalling human consequences of the crisis would be dealt with by a shadowy organisation called the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), originally designed to keep government functioning in secret in a nuclear war, but better known for mismanaging the aftermath of hurricanes. The mainstream defence establishment would hardly enter the picture. If the attack was clearly launched by a foreign state, the generals might get busy retaliating. But what if the culprits were home-grown terrorists? In practice, nobody knows who would do what if American city-dwellers faced a lethal cloud of anthrax or nerve gas. An exercise in March, designed to test the authorities' response to a genetically engineered virus spread by terrorists on the Mexican-American border, led to better squabbling among rival agencies. ``There is no clear demarcation line between the FBI and FEMA, and knowledge about disease and hazardous materials is spread over a broad array of institutions,'' says Zachary Selden, a germ-warfare boffin. ``Somebody is needed to sit on top of these operations.'' But as America waits for the barbarians, its soldiers and guardsmen may at last have found something in common. Both have an interest in keeping the Pentagon's mind concentrated on hypothetical overseas wars, as opposed to deadly attacks on the homeland which look all to possible.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their collective and outspoken support on this issue. As we all know, this legislation serves one very important purpose, saving lives. We have all heard the stories about these vests saving peace officers from armed criminals, but I think it is also very important and very useful to understand, and I want to take this opportunity to point out, that providing protective vests to our law enforcement personnel has saved lives over the years in many nonshooting instances as well. For example, in 1978, Deputy Gary Bale of the Washoe County Sheriff's Department was struck by a drunk driver while responding to a call for assistance from another officer. After sorting through the wreckage, it was determined that Deputy Bale's vest saved his life by absorbing the impact of the horrific accident. Again, in 1987, Deputy Douglas Brady was directing traffic when he was struck by a vehicle. He was thrown off the road and over a guardrail, yet survived, because, it was again determined, his protective vest absorbed the potential lethal impact. In another example, Deputy Earl Walling was working as a guard in the Washoe County Jail when an inmate attacked him with a sharpened object. Had Deputy Walling not been wearing his vest, he would have suffered life-threatening injuries. Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that our law enforcement personnel are not just dodging bullets. It is my hope that by bringing each of these potentially fatal occurrences to mind, we can further stress the importance of providing vests to these officers. Passage of this bill will allow the families of our law enforcement officers to each year look forward to celebrating another Mother's Day or another Father's Day together with their family. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 2829.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act, will come before this body to serve one very important purpose, and that purpose is to help save the lives of our law enforcement personnel. Tomorrow in Carson City, the capital of Nevada, State officials and law enforcement representatives will gather to dedicate the Nevada Law Enforcement Police Officers Memorial. Inscribed on this memorial are the names of every law enforcement officer who lost his or her life in the line of duty. The passage of H.R. 2829 will help protect our law enforcement officers who, on a daily basis, put their lives on the line to keep our communities and ourselves and our families safe. It is the hope of all Nevadans, and I know especially the families of law enforcement personnel, that the passage of this legislation will prevent future names and, perhaps, their loved ones from being added to this valorous memorial. The men and women of law enforcement provide safety and a sense of security to every American citizen. This is our chance to provide a sense of safety and security to them.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, has the White House gone fishing, or are they just somewhere out there, lost in space? I know I should not be surprised, but quite frankly, I am shocked that the Clinton administration is giving classified American missile technology to China. While this administration publicly pats itself on the back for nurturing relations with China, China is spreading this missile technology around the world, including rogue and terrorist nations. The space cadets in this administration are trying so hard to push a bad policy that they just approved the transfer of classified missile technology to China's Great Wall Industries. In case you did not know, Great Wall Industries supplies and builds components for China's nuclear missiles. Americans are asking: Is this administration trying to inhale in the vacuum of space, or is this just plain ignorance on their part? It is time we sent a clear message to these space balls that Congress will not reward bad behavior or bad policy. It is time for us to prohibit the transfer of nuclear technology that can be used to enhance China's missile program.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman and chairman of the committee for an opportunity to speak today. Mr. Chairman I rise to join my colleagues today in strong support of H.R. 3694,the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1999. Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct pleasure of being able to serve on both the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on National Security. This allows me the opportunity to look across both operation military and defense issues as well as the intelligence functions that not only support but in fact participate in those various defense operations. I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this is a very prudent bill. It is a bill that not only sustains currently required capabilities but, importantly, begins to rebuild critical intelligence capabilities lost as a result of security changes brought about by the end of the bipolar cold war. It is a bill that provides our military forces with the information resources necessary to build our fighter confidence and perhaps even to keep them out of harm's way. It also seeks to provide them with the indications and warnings intelligence to allow them the advantage in a conflict. Let there be no mistake Mr. Chairman. Contrary to arguments that will be made today, this is not a more secure world since the end of the cold war. While it is true that we do not face the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation today from the former Soviet Union, the threats posed by international terrorism, transnational threats such as narcotics trafficking, organized international crime, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, any use of chemical and biological weapons by rogue nation states are more pressing and considerably more dangerous than they ever have been before. The problems associated with collecting and understanding information about today's risks are in many ways more difficult because formal government boundaries are not limiting the threats to our peace and security. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated that information dominance is one of the most important characteristics of his Joint Vision 2010 strategy. Intelligence, intelligence, Mr. Chairman, is the bedrock for that information dominance. This bill provides our intelligence community with military forces, the infrastructure necessary to give United States that information dominance. And finally, Mr. Chairman, I need to point out that this bill provides a fiscally sound increase of less than one-tenth of 1 percent to the President's request for intelligence. This increase reflects the proper emphasis on the information gathering, exploitation and dissemination activities necessary to ensure the security of the United States. And that is the bottom line: the security of the United States.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, tucked away deep inside the $128 billion in new Federal taxes in President Clinton's new budget proposal is a $529 million increase in the salaries for the Internal Revenue Service. That is right, Mr. Speaker. The IRS, the same out-of-control rogue Federal agency that has trampled the constitutional rights of millions of American citizens, is getting a pay raise. We are all familiar with the saying, ``if it is not broke, do not fix.'' However, someone needs to introduce this administration and my liberal colleagues to the concept that if it is broke, do not reward them with a half a billion dollar pay raise out of the pockets of the American taxpayers. In light of recent reports of taxpayer abuse by IRS agents, the President promised swift action. If a half a billion dollar pay raise is swift action, I would hate to see just what his long-range corrective action would entail. Thomas Sowell, a noted economist, once said, ``It is easy to be wrong, and to persist in being wrong, when the costs of being wrong are paid for by others.''

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, it was just 2 short years ago that the Clinton administration proclaimed that the era of big government was over. My, oh my, how quickly things have changed, Mr. Speaker. Now judging from his most recent budget proposal, the era of abusive bloated Federal bureaucracy is alive and well under the Clinton administration. What other possible explanation could there be for $128 billion in new taxes in his 1999 budget proposal? In all fairness to the President, however, he has the right, as he has in the past, to propose all of the tax increases that he desires. Certainly it is his prerogative as the top elected official of this country. However, Mr. Speaker, I think most people will see through this big government, big tax increase proposal for exactly what it is: a thinly disguised effort by the administration to once again stick its greedy hands into the pockets of every working man and woman in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of any money we all may have left.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the scourge of illegal drug use in this country has reached epidemic proportions. Countless hours and lives have been lost fighting to free our communities from the grasp of these drugs. Given the severity of the situation, how does the Clinton Administration plan to continue the fight? They want to give out free needles to drug addicts. Shoot me up, Mr. Speaker. What next? Free drugs? This cannot be his brilliant battle plan to win the war on drugs. If it is, Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think of the President's plan for the rest of society's ills. Are we going to give out free pornography to sex offenders? Heaven forbid the United States should in any way inconvenience those who are breaking the law. It is discouraging to see the White House embrace such a defeatist policy. It goes against the values upon which this great country was founded. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this free needle policy.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the Interior Department says that it has been making great strides in implementing the Results Act. That is a 1993 law which requires Federal agencies to define their missions, set goals, and plan how to meet those goals, and specifically measure agency progress. Great strides? In a recent audit by the GAO, the Interior Department received a 29 out of a possible 100. That is right, 29. It has been a while since I have been in school, but I cannot imagine the kind of bell curve that would make 29 a passing grade. Even the Interior Department's own independent acting IG says their plans do not provide a clear picture of the intended performance. With approximately 87 percent of Nevada being managed by the Federal Government, this news only bolsters and solidifies the fact that the Department is in desperate need of a tutor. A 29 is not great strides. It is not a giant step. A 29 is a huge step backwards. The only bright side to this is that they have plenty of room for improvement. The school bell has rung, recess time is over, and the Interior Department needs to return to class.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remind my colleagues and our guests that yesterday was Earth Day. Interestingly enough, as I look back, last week Chicago residents protested and stopped a shipment of napalm from coming through their area. I am so pleased to know that the Federal Government is so committed to preserving and maintaining the environment that they have dedicated a whole 24 hours in its honor. Well, Mr. Speaker, in Nevada every day is Earth Day, and the hard- working men and women of Nevada are so dedicated to maintaining the environment that they fight each and every day to stop 70,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste from being shoved down their throats. I was encouraged by the overwhelming demonstration of support for Earth Day from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Consequently, I greatly anticipate their support in our effort to keep the environment safe from the dangers of transporting high-level nuclear waste through their communities. What better way to celebrate every day as Earth Day than to stop the needless transportation through our communities of the deadliest material on earth. I urge my colleagues to use science, not the politics of emotion, in supporting Earth Day.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell my colleagues, and as well, the American people, that the tax limitation amendment works. Fourteen States have now adopted language that includes tax limitations, including my home State of Nevada. In tax limitation States, taxes grow more slowly and government spending grows more slowly. On the other hand, the economies expand faster and the job base grows more quickly. Today, we have an opportunity to allow the Federal Government and the national economy to get the same benefits. It is helpful for us to remember that after taking control in 1994, the Republican Congress balanced the Federal budget for the first time in a generation. It was done by reducing wasteful government spending, not by raising taxes. Now that we have reached a balanced budget, the tax limitation constitutional amendment will ensure that future Congresses do not resort to the old ``tax and spend'' ways of the past. This legislation makes raising taxes on the American people exactly what it should be, a last resort. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important and much-needed legislation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the birthday of the United States Army Reserve. April 23rd marks 90 years of service by the Army Reserve to the United States of America. Throughout our history, the purpose of the United States Army has been to fight and win the nation's wars. To be sure, America's Army Reserve has existed side-by-side with the Army to accomplish that mission, but the scope and method of that support has changed commensurate with the nation's needs. Simply stated, the United States Army Reserve has been and will always be a model of flexibility that is a crucial national treasure and the envy of the world. In its early days, America's Army Reserve existed to ensure that the sons and daughters of America, who were put in harm's way in the name of defending freedom, received the finest medical care as far forward as possible. It was an extraordinary success. During World War One, almost 45,000 officer and enlisted Army Reservists served in medical units throughout the European theater. What was an experiment in the medical arena alone soon had application in combat and other combat support specialities as well. America's Army Reserve was crucial in the years between the world wars. Its officers ran hundreds of Civilian Conservation Corps camps here at home during the Depression. Not only did they keep their own leadership skills sharp, they also helped others to become productive citizens at a time when the nation was in dire economic straits. During World War Two, the hundreds of thousands of Army Reservists who served spelled the difference as America thwarted the forces of darkness, deceit and dictatorship around the world. They responded again when freedom called on the Korean peninsula. Almost a quarter of a million citizen-soldiers were called to active duty during that conflict, and their valor, fidelity and bravery were above reproach. Seven Army Reservists earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for their service in Korea. America's Army Reserve was needed, and was there, in Vietnam, again providing the vital combat support that makes the combat soldier's life a little more bearable. No amount of superlatives can begin to describe the contributions of the United States Army Reserve during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Of all reserve component forces mobilized by the Department of Defense, clearly a third of them proudly wore the uniform of America's Army Reserve. Almost 85,000 Army Reserve citizen-soldiers answered freedom's call, again, 20,000 of them being members of the Individual Ready Reserve. In the post-Cold War era, it is not just a slogan, but a clearly established fact, that America's Army cannot accomplish its mission and cannot go to war without America's Army Reserve. The Army Reserve provided 70 percent of the Army's reserve component support during Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti. In Bosnia, the Army Reserve is also providing over 70 percent of the Army's reserve component support. Not leaving anything to chance, the Army Reserve in fact has established a chain of support that begins here in the United States and culminates in Bosnia itself. While America's Army Reserve helped restore democracy in Haiti, its citizen-soldiers have literally restored hope and faith in the future for the civil war-weary people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Mr. Speaker, I believe that many of my colleagues here have also experienced the competence and magnificence of the United States Army Reserve right here at home. It was the Army Reserve that guided people to safety following the onslaught of Hurricane Andrew. It was the Army Reserve that provided clean, potable water to the people of North Dakota following the ravages of last spring's flooding. And it was the Army Reserve that quickly and efficiently established recovery operations in the devastating aftermath of Typhoon Paka in Guam. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere conviction that there is no better defense bargain today than America's Army Reserve. As the geostrategic environment has changed, so has the Army Reserve. This proactive, visionary understanding of the nation's needs has led to an Army Reserve that is more trained, more ready and more relevant than any other comparable force on this earth. As we speak, there is a miracle taking place whose impact may be felt half a world away. The 310th Chemical Company, headquartered at Fort McClellan, Alabama, epitomizes the seamless integration between the Active Army and the Army Reserve. This unit is, in fact, a combined active-reserve outfit, with four of its platoons belonging to the Army Reserve and one belonging to the Active Army. The 310th was identified to receive new biological weapons detection equipment, which is of utmost importance to the Army's defense, but also to the defense of the United States should we, as a nation, ever face the consequences of these terrible weapons. On just four days advance notice, the 310th was rescheduled for its annual training from this coming summer to this past February. The unit's soldiers, and the civilian employers who support them, responded magnificently, with virtually no problems encountered during this training change. What makes the 310th all the more extraordinary is that, while its soldiers were undergoing that training, they were also notified that they were being mobilized as part of the U.S. response to the transgressions of Saddam Hussein against the United Nations. They progressed through their training and mobilized in anticipated deployment to the Persian Gulf region. It was the ability of this unit to train and mobilize on such a short notice that, I feel, contributed to Iraq's decision to accommodate U.N. inspectors searching for the very weapons that the 310th is designed and equipped to detect. In closing, I ask that we pause and reflect on what our nation's defenses would be without America's Army Reserve. I shudder to think of that possibility. We cannot and must never take for granted what these citizen-soldiers, and just as importantly, their families and civilian employers, sacrifice for the benefit for every citizen of this nation. We have been blessed with freedoms that are the dream and envy of peoples in far-flung corners of the globe. This April 23rd, think about your freedom of speech, your freedom of assembly and your freedom of religion. Consider your right to vote and our freedom of the press. And as you reflect on these basic freedoms, think about the people who make that all possible. When you do, I hope you will join me in taking a minute out of our busy schedules to personally thank and salute the men and women of America's Army Reserve.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 111, the tax limitation amendment. In 1994, as a citizen of Nevada, I led an effort to amend our State Constitution with this very same language. I am proud to say that Nevada voters on two consecutive elections voted overwhelmingly to pass the measure. The Gibbons Tax Restraint Initiative, as it is referred to, has now become law in the State of Nevada. By passing this law, the citizens of Nevada declared in a loud and clear voice that they want to put a leash on runaway spending and tax increases. States with similar initiatives on supermajority requirements for tax increases experience greater economic growth, lower taxes, and reduced growth in government spending. The Federal Government needs to be put on the same fat-free diet by making it more difficult to raise taxes on hard-working men and women and thereby shifting the congressional focus to the bloated spending programs of the Federal bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the tax limitation amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, a recent survey asking Americans to rank the least three desirable situations, revealed the following: Number three was being called by your boss and saying you are fired. Number two, well, it was going to lunch at a nice restaurant and finding your spouse dining with an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend. And the first worst nightmare for Americans was going to the mailbox and finding a letter whose return address was the IRS. These examples, think about it, while graphic, illustrate the growing fear and frustrations the American people have with our tax system. April 1st is a day that brings practical jokes to the minds of many, yet the clock ticks on toward April 15th, a day that brings fear and paralysis to all working men and women. Mr. Speaker, only a few citizens are left in this country who can do their own taxes, and yet horror stories of IRS abuse are still mounting. The time to act is now. I urge my colleagues to join me in the tax reform effort, to make this the last April 1st where the American taxpayers are made out to be the fools.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the birthday of the United States Air Force Reserve. April 14, 1998 will mark fifty years of service by the Air Force Reserve to the United States of America. The Air Force Reserve traces its heritage to the National Defense Act of 1916, which authorized a corps of reserve officer and enlisted aviators. From this modest beginning, Reservists made noteworthy contributions during both world wars. On April 14, 1948, the Air Force Reserve became a component of the United States Air Force. In 1998, the Air Force Reserve celebrates the 50th anniversary of this event. During those 50 years, Reservists have served proudly and with great distinction during times of conflict. They answered the call in Korea in the 1950s, in Berlin, Cuba, Korea and Southeast Asia in the 1960s, and in the Persian Gulf in the 1990s. In peacetime, while maintaining a high degree of readiness to respond during a crisis, Reservists perform humanitarian, rescue, hurricane reconnaissance and aerial-spray missions throughout the United States and around the world. They also support virtually every air force peacetime operational activity, from airlift missions and satellite operations, to patrolling the no-fly zones over Bosnia and Iraq. The Air Force Reserve has grown from an ``extremes force'' to an integrated combat ready fighting force. As the Air Force Reserve moves into the 21st Century, they play an expanded role in meeting the fast changing needs of our country. They are developing more detailed long- range and annual planning documents to ensure the Reserve is a viable partner in the total force goal--to best use our capabilities, provide America an effective defense, and give the best value for our defense dollar. Originally intended for wartime augmentation, today these citizen airmen support national objectives on a daily basis. Their day-to-day involvement has increased markedly in recent years. The Air Force Reserve participated in 11 contingencies between 1953 and 1990. In the last seven years, they have played a significant role in over 40 major operations. This is part of life and they are proud to do it. In every instance since Desert Storm, they have met these obligations with all volunteers. The Air Force Reserve is a force of dedicated airmen who help support the world's most respected Air Force. Today, they provide 13 percent of total Air Force manning and roughly 20 percent of the Air Force's total air and space capability. Their mission is readiness, but their job is to support the total Air Force. Air Force planners and leaders recognize the need for their support and rely on them to step in wherever needed. Their readiness has never been higher, and they are part of nearly every mission area. One of the keys to their success is compensating leverage as a force multiplier inherent within a fully trained and accessible force waiting on call. In reality, today's global situation dictates that they serve as a peacetime augmentation force as well as a ready, wartime force. Air Force Reserve units maintain readiness levels on par with active duty units. Over 92% of Air Reserve units are currently combat ready, closely paralleling our active force. The Air Force Reserve remains ready to support mission requirements at any time, under any conditions, anywhere in the world. They bring current, mission capable technology, at low cost, to meet the expectations of the active duty commanders they support. And they bring the creative ingenuity and dedication of a highly skilled and diverse workforce to meet their requirements and their responsibilities to the American people. Some of the most notable accomplishments for the Air Force Reserve over the past 50 years have included: April 14, 1948--The U.S. Air Force Reserve was officially designated. 1950-1952--All 25 Air Force Reserve wings, along with 118,000 individual reservists, came on active duty during the Korean conflict. July 9, 1952--The Armed Forces Reserve Act standardized pay and training categories and established Ready, Standby and Retired mobilization categories. Oct. 1, 1961--Five Air Force Reserve C-124 Globemaster groups and about 9,000 individual reservists, totaling more than 15,000 were mobilized during the Berlin Crisis. Oct. 18, 1962--Eight Air Force Reserve troop carrier wings and six aerial port squadrons, total more than 14,000 reservists, were mobilized during the Cuban missile crisis. Jan. 26, 1968--Six Air Force Reserve units were mobilized in the wake of the Pueblo Incident. May 13, 1968--Seven Air Force Reserve units were mobilized to support the Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. Aug. 21, 1970--The Total Force Concept was announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, making reserve components the initial source of augmentation for the active force rather than the draft. Aug. 3, 1973--Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger elevated the Total Force Concept to the Total Force Policy, integrating the active, Guard and Reserve into a homogeneous whole. Oct. 1, 1977--In a mission shared with the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve began rotating C-130s, aircrews, and support personnel to Howard Air Force Base, Panama, in support of Phoenix Oak, the Air Force's Latin American mission. Oct. 23, 1983--Air Force Reserve airlift associate units assisted in the evacuation of more than 700 American and foreign citizens from Grenada during the civil turbulence on that island. Reserve maintenance, aerial port and medical personnel also supported the active forces. Oct. 24, 1983--Air Force Reserve airlift associate aircrews helped evacuate wounded U.S. Marines from Lebanon. Reservists flew 63 strategic airlift missions transporting supplies and casualties into and out of Beirut. December 1989--Reserve units took part in Operation Just Cause, airlifting passengers and cargo to Panama. Aeromedical, special operations and air refueling units also participated in the effort to ensure protection of Americans and U.S. resources. When the operation ended Jan. 31, 1990, Reserve airlift units had flown nearly 1,500 hours airflifting some 7,500 passengers and more than 4,000 tons of cargo. Reserve air refueling crews offloaded more than a million pounds of fuel to 18 receiving aircraft, and AC-130 gunships flew 157 hours and expended nearly 7,500 rounds of ammunition. August 1990--Nearly 6,000 of more than 9,000 Reserve volunteers were on duty within two weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait Aug. 2. February 1991--There were more than 17,500 reservists on active duty. About 3,800 were officers and 13,700 were enlisted personnel. About one in four were women. Approximately 1,800 were air reserve technicians, 1,300 were individual mobilization augmentees and more than 500 were members of the Individual Ready Reserve. More than 7,000 of those reservists were in medical specialties. March 1991--The mobilization reached its peak with almost 23,500 Air Force reservists on duty. Of them, more than 20,000 were assigned to 215 Reserve units, 2,300 were individual mobilization augmentees and 960 were members of the Individual Ready Reserve or retirees. Most members of the latter group were medical personnel. The Department of Defense authorized the commanders of the gaining major commands to demobilize reservists, consistent with military requirements. May 8-10, 1992--The Command Band of the Air Force Reserve performed on Russian television May 7 and in the Kremlin May 8. On May 9, the band participated in the Peace Victory Parade, marking the first time a U.S. military unit has marched in the Russian capital. July 15, 1992--A Reserve C-130 and two aircrews from the 934th Airlift Group, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Air Reserve Station, Minn., joined active-duty and Air National Guard aircraft and crews at Rhein Main Air Base, Germany, to airlift desperately needed supplies and food into war-torn Sarajevo and Zagreb during Operation Provide Promise. Dec. 8-14, 1992--Reservists flew 190 sorties, airlifted 1,076 passengers and 1,504 tons of cargo, and off-loaded nearly 1.8 million pounds of fuel in flight as part of Operation Restore Hope. The Air Force Reserve had 381 volunteers who were placed on active duty for 31 days. Of that total, 396 airlifted troops and equipment, 37 flew air refueling missions, 17 performed medical duties and 14 provided aerial port support. Jan. 1, 1993--The Air Force Reserve entered the space program with the activation of the 7th Space Operations Squadron at Falcon Air Force Base, Colo. Jan. 31, 1993--Air Force Reserve units reported airlifting 9,400 passengers and 11,728 tons of cargo in support of Operation Restore Hope, the relief mission in Somalia. Associate aircrews, flying active- duty aircraft, airlifted most of the passengers and cargo flown by the Reserve. November 1993-January 1994--Air Force Reserve A-10 Thunderbolt II and F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots and aircraft participated with Air National Guard and coalition forces in Operation Deny Flight, enforcement of a military non-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina in accordance with a United Nations Security Council resolution. June-September 1994--Reserve A-10 and KC-135 units deployed to Europe in support of the United Nations' no-fly zone over Bosnia. A-10s, aircrews and support people went to Aviano Air Base, Italy, again to provide fighter coverage. KC-135s, aircrews and support personnel staged air refueling operations from Pisa, Italy, and Istres, France, for U.S. and NATO fighters. September 1994--Air Force Reserve airlift and air refueling aircraft flew missions in support of Operation Uphold Democracy, the peacekeeping mission in Haiti. By Sept. 20, more than 1,100 reservists volunteered to deploy or remain in place to assist the operation. Homestead Air Reserve Base, Fla., and Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Ga., were staging bases. Homestead served as a jumping off point into Haiti, and Dobbins accommodated C-130s loaded with Army civil engineers from Fort Bragg, N.C. December 1995--Reserve airlift, aerial refueling, and aeromedical units plus individual mobilization augmentees began supporting Operation Joint Endeavor, the NATO-sponsored peacekeeping mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina. January-June 1996--Reserve fighter units, based at Aviano Air Base, Italy, continued to support the enforcement of the no-fly zone over the former Yugoslavia. The original UN-sponsored mission, Deny Flight concluded Dec. 21, 1995, when NATO assumed responsibility for what was then called Decisive Edge. February 17, 1997--The Air Force Reserve was designated as an Air Force major command, from a field operating agency, and renamed the Air Force Reserve Command. Air Force Reservists, through their unselfish devotion to duty, are dedicated ``Citizen Airmen'' who have served America proudly and with distinction for 50 years.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we are roughly 13 hours away from the first day of April, also known as April Fool's Day. This year, Mr. Speaker, I think America should observe April Fool's day on April 15. Why? Well, April 15 is the day when the IRS plays the biggest prank of all, trying to convince the Americans that it has turned over a new leaf as a kinder, gentler agency. Mr. Speaker, the Americans are no fools. They see the IRS for exactly what it is, out of control. April 1 has been dedicated to fools, and April 15 has been dedicated to the IRS, just 14 days between losing one's mind and losing one's money. Working men and women in this country are sick and tired of having the joke played on them. Our families deserve a government that is dedicated to reform and accountability, not abusive power and status quo. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of real and practical IRS reform, tax reform now, not tomorrow. We must end the practical joke on the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, when I was a child, people thought that little green men lived on Mars and that the Moon was made of cheese. That was when imagination was stronger than science. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues look at transporting and storing nuclear waste in much the same way. A recent scientific study claimed that the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is at least 10 times, that is right, 10 times more prone to earthquakes and lava flows than government scientists previously estimated. Nevada ranks third in the Nation for current earthquake activity. Recognition and proper use of this information could potentially save thousands of lives. With over 30 earthquakes a year, clearly, Yucca Mountain is not suitable, and it may very well be the worst place to store the deadliest material man has ever created. The space program proved that little green men did not live on Mars. And as long as the DOE applies this new scientific information, America will not force little green people to live in Nevada.