Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, in American history, extraordinary times seem to call forth extraordinary individuals, great leaders who have given inspiration and hope during difficult times and moments of crisis. FDR led this country through a terrible Depression and an even more terrible world war. JFK inspired a Nation during the height of the Cold War and led America into space, a journey which culminated in putting a man on the moon in 1969. And Ronald Reagan challenged the conventional wisdom, both at home and abroad, rejecting the failed economic policies of the past and embracing a foreign policy based on strengths and a resolute belief in the rightness of American democratic values. Grateful Americans have a proud national tradition of honoring their heroes, and grateful Americans from across the country have urged Congress to honor that great American hero Ronald Reagan. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2625, a bill to redesignate Washington National Airport as Ronald Reagan National Airport. It is time to honor those who have done so much to make America great.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for yielding this time to me. In addition to the speakers of the last hour, I too would like to rise to pay tribute to our late colleague, Sonny Bono. When often asked to describe Sonny Bono, we here on the floor would fondly refer to him as the Will Rogers of Congress. His humor lightened our lives, those especially of us who were lucky enough to have had the opportunity to know and to serve with him. His klutzy exterior often masked the articulate intellectual interior of a man who was committed to ending the scourge of drugs on our country. When he saw the rock culture of the 60s turning to the drug culture of the 60s, Sonny Bono said no. He was outspoken in his opposition to drug use throughout his career as an entertainer as well as a public servant. He was a dedicated husband and father who placed the well- being of his family above all. While in Washington, Sonny preached a message that each of this body would do well to remember: ``Take your job but not yourself very seriously.'' Farewell, Sonny. May God bless your family. This country will miss you.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Rudy Gunnerman for not only living the American dream and creating a future for himself and his family but also for working to create a better future for all Americans. Mr. Gunnerman's entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity have resulted in a scientific discovery to fight air pollution. This invention will not only assist communities across our country meet clean air standards, but also help them do so in a cost competitive manner. I am proud that he has chosen Reno, my hometown, to be his home and the corporate base of operation for the refinement and potential production of his invention--A-55 Clean Fuels. Rudy Gunnerman embodies the American dream. In 1949, he emigrated from Germany to the United States. Rudy was raised an orphan during World War II and arrived in America at the age of 21 with $20 and a single suitcase. His first months in America were spent painting houses. From this, he started a string of successful companies honing his entrepreneurial skills. Rudy's inventive mind was always at work, looking for ways to better our quality of life through science. His initial patent was in heat barrier materials. Rudy utilized his experience in the manufacture of pool toys and began working with lightweight and inexpensive cement- like materials that under extreme conditions would reflect heat through oxidations. The Federal Government applied Rudy's technology for use in rocket engines liners and laser countermeasures. Rudy subsequently founded a company that began making fireproof doors out of the material. Rudy's big break came in the 1970's while living in Oregon when he noticed how the wood smoke choked beautiful valleys during the winter. In 1976, Rudy opened a small research and development company in Eugene, OR, to produce pelletized industrial boiler fuel from wood paste. The pellets burned hotter and cleaner than raw wood waste, and proved to be economical as well. Ultimately, Rudy's company sold licenses to some of world's largest corporations to produce pellets in several countries. Schools, hospitals, factories, and homes across the Pacific Northwest also switched to pellets. This was just the prelude. Rudy's most challenging and far-reaching invention brought him to Reno, NV. A-55 Clean Fuels is a water-based petroleum emulsion that 1 day may provide a cleaner, safer, and cheaper primary fuel with a full range of applications--from electricity production to mass transportation. The product is making a difference nationwide and internationally A-55 reduced harmful NOX emissions from 50 to 80 percent. For vehicle use, only a minor change in the injection system and an empty fuel tank would be necessary for conversion to A-55 use. A-55 achieves nearly the same miles per gallon with no loss of engine performance. A-55 is safer than conventional petroleum fuels. It will not ignite outside the combustion chamber, and in fact, will often put out an open flame. Many alternative fuels in the past have also been prohibitively expensive compared to traditional fuels.This is not the case for A-55, which is cost competitive with diesel. With Clean Air Act standards imminent by 2004, A-55 could be the silver bullet to help communities cope with requirements and reduce air pollution without feared economic side effects. A-55 Clean Fuels looks like milk and could very well be the next natural for protecting our environment and promoting economic growth. Rudy Gunnerman should be applauded for his inventions and the opportunities they may 1 day provide for all of us to assist in the cleanup of air pollution across the country. Rudy Gunnerman's life is a shining example of the opportunities that America can offer and the contributions that one can give back to society through those very opportunities. With all this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I again commend Reno's own Rudy Gunnerman--entrepreneur, inventor, American.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes even through the fog of Washington the truth shines through. Last week, I distributed to all my colleagues a study completed by the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand that indicated the numerous positive -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to inform my Members about Coalgate; no, not the toothpaste or the university, but another campaign scandal. In the heat of the 1996 campaign, President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, which consisted of more than 1.7 million acres of land, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The White House claims this monument was needed to protect one of the most pristine areas in America. However, I would contend that 62 billion tons of low-sulfur coal reserve was the real reason for this designation. The Lippo Group, very large donors of the President's campaign, had a large financial stake in this monument, because clean Utah coal would have competed with the imported coal from Indonesia. It is a sad day when the President would deny schoolchildren in Utah the tax revenues of $1.5 billion in coal or the royalties, to protect foreign interests and promote his own self-serving ambition. Madam Speaker, the definition of greed has truly been revealed to the American people. They deserve the truth.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve the truth and they deserve an answer. Did the Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt wield political power in exchange for the promise of a campaign contribution? Did the order to do so come from the White House? These are very serious questions that the American people deserve to have answered. Well, let us ask Secretary Babbitt. First he says, ``No.'' Then he says, ``Yes, I did it, but I was only doing as I was told.'' Now the answer approved by the White House is, ``I don't know.'' Well, how many scandals and how many allegations of criminal wrongdoing will the executive branch of this Government respond to with, ``I don't know''? Well, maybe this Congress should instruct the Centers for Disease Control to investigate the rampant selective loss of memory in this administration. However, Mr. Speaker, I am here to say enough is enough. American people deserve the truth. I urge Attorney General Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the alleged wrongdoings of Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, recent news reports have all Americans asking, did the Secretary of the Interior, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in disbelief, in fact in total disgust. I stand here before you in an effort to seek the truth in campaign fund-raising allegations involving the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Bruce Babbitt, a serious abuse of power. I am here to inform my colleagues of the mounting evidence that Secretary Babbitt potentially misused his administrative position to influence the outcome of a 1995 Department of Interior decision regarding an Indian gaming permit to a group of Chippewa Indians in Wisconsin, all that in exchange for political contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Allow me to set the stage. Three groups of Wisconsin Chippewa Indians recently filed a lawsuit charging that the Clinton administration bowed to improper political pressure when the Interior Department rejected their application for a gaming permit in 1995. So what was the reason for this otherwise unexplainable denial? Well, other tribes opposing their application donated more than $270,000 to the Democratic National Committee soon after their proposal was rejected. The rival tribes were trying to prevent competition to their lucrative gaming interests located some 20 miles from Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN. Now, Mr. Paul Eckstein, an attorney and old friend of Mr. Babbitt, recently testified before a Senate Governmental Affairs panel on campaign fund-raising hearings that he met with Secretary Babbitt on July 14, 1995, after being told by another Interior Department official that the casino planned by 3 Wisconsin Chippewa tribes was being disapproved. Eckstein proceeded to tell the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that Mr. Babbitt's response was that Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, had directed him to issue the decision that day. In a 1996 letter to Senator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, the Interior Secretary denied making the comment about Ickes. But last month, Mr. Babbitt again recanted, acknowledging that he did, in fact, make the remarks to Mr. Eckstein simply to get the lawyer out of his office. Well, the contradiction in Secretary Babbitt's responses troubles me almost as much as the act of trading favors for campaign money. The blatant misuse of administrative power for monetary gain is a serious offense. If no other inconsistencies were uncovered beyond this, this would still warrant the appointment of an independent counsel. At issue in this case is whether Secretary Babbitt's decision to deny the application was influenced by the promise of political contributions and whether his actions came as a result of an order from higher up in the administrative ladder. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent to stand here before the House in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case, nor to comment on any more specific details of the event that precipitated this matter. However, the apparent seriousness of the allegations of this wrongdoing and underlying facts clearly dictate further investigations into this matter. I have in my office investigative reports, many from major news publications on this subject, that confirm in precise detail the pervasive, serious and potentially unlawful conduct of Secretary Babbitt's 1995 decision. The likelihood that government policy was made in return for a political donation in this case clearly brings into question whether criminal misconduct occurred in fund-raising efforts for the 1996 Federal election. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to inform you of major malfunctions in the campaign fund-raising machine for the 1996 election, and I am also here to inform my colleagues of my intent to pursue this matter further. In fact, I would like to report on Friday of last week I sent a letter to the Attorney General, lauding the Justice Department's decision to open a 30-day initial review into how Secretary Babbitt handled the application for an Indian gaming permit back in 1995. But this is not enough. In this same letter I expressed my earnest sense of urgency on behalf of the American people in pushing forth with the appointment of an independent counsel to investigation this scandal.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding this time to me, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the conference report accompanying Senate Bill 858. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], along with their counterparts in the other body deserve a great deal of credit for an intelligence authorization bill that this Nation can be proud of and that all Members of this body should strongly support. Not only does this bill authorize the proper amount of authorization for the operation of our national intelligence activities, it also specifically authorizes funds for those tactical intelligence functions that provide direct indications and morning support to our military personnel deployed around the world. It is absolutely critical that we, the elected officials in this country, fully support those men and women we have sent into harm's way with useful intelligence. This bill provides the best effort possible to do just that. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is also important to note that in terms of tactical intelligence functions, in this bill there was tremendous and close coordination between the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on National Security. I have firsthand knowledge of this as I proudly serve on both committees. This cooperation was so effective, in fact, that the tactical intelligence provisions addressed were actually contained in the defense authorization bill that was recently voted on by Congress. As a former military veteran and fighter pilot, I must say that several of these provisions address issues that are very important to me personally, issues such as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAV's. These unmanned aircraft offer a great potential for reducing the threat and danger of enemy activities and threats to our airborne reconnaissance aircrews. However, in many Members' eyes, the Department of Defense's management of these vehicles has not proven to be overly successful. The defense and intelligence authorization bills take some bold steps in this direction, both in terms of legislation and funding actions, to improve the Department's UAV management, thus ensuring that these air vehicles have the greatest chance for success. Although controversial to some, I believe the very responsible positions hammered out during the conference and the conference process are all fair, logical, and, most importantly, a step in the right direction, to minimize the overhead costs while maximizing the Services' responsibilities for equipping their troops. These responsible actions are reflective of the entire intelligence authorization bill. Again, I would like to thank the chairman and the Members on the other side of the aisle for their conscious and dedicated effort in this regard. I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the IRS reform bill passed yesterday, which is an important first step in the battle to overhaul the current tax collection system in this country. However, this victory must be viewed with a little cautious optimism. Let us not forget that when the President of this country was confronted with the Senate finance hearings that last month exposed the incredible abuse of power, which seems, by the way, to be the way of business over at the IRS, his first reaction was to defend the IRS. Incredible, stupefying, the American people thought, that this President's first reaction was to say, things really are not that bad. He criticized the Republican tax reform plan. Of course, that was until he saw the American taxpayers were having nothing to do with his shrill criticism, because they have known for years that the IRS operates through heavy-handed tactics, sloppiness, and a lack of accountability. Any agency that allows bureaucrats no accountability will, over time, abuse its power. The IRS reform package passed yesterday 426 to 4. It will inject real accountability to the IRS. Let us get rid of this bureaucratic, selfish Tax Code.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we can control disease in America, but we cannot control the IRS. Here we go again, and as my mother used to say, same song, just a different verse. The IRS has found a new way to abuse the American taxpayer. This time they are reneging on an agreement with the restaurant industry. After complaining for years that they are not able to tax the tips earned by hard-working restaurant employees, the IRS proposed a new voluntary taxation plan. Restaurants could, but were by no means obligated to, use this method of recording this income. To nobody's surprise, the IRS has now resorted to intimidation, threatening audits on any business that does not follow their extortionary demands. This type of harassment must end. Fortunately, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997 will prohibit this abuse of power. Yes, Mr. Speaker, today is a new day, and we need a new IRS. The time has come to restore the common sense and accountability of this country's tax collection agency.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, a copy of an internal IRS document sent to my office clearly shows that the IRS is using a quota system in evaluating employee performance, despite the fact that using quotas was made illegal 9 years ago. This memo clearly shows the handwritten comments of an IRS supervisor stating that the monthly total collected by this employee is only 13 percent of the expected or required total. When confronted with this evidence, the IRS took a play right out of the plausible denial handbook of the White House; oh, yes, they said, we are not using quotas, these are just goals. Plausible denial or goals, whatever the name is or that the IRS assigns to this practice, it must be stopped. I have introduced the Taxpayer Protection Act of 1997, which will once and for all end quotas for the IRS. IRS agents should be determining the correct amount of tax dollars owed, not trying to inflate their numbers so that they may be considered for a promotion. I urge my colleagues to join me in a fight to once and for all end the use of quotas.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today is Halloween, so let me begin with the first liberal horror story of the day. Our education liberals have come up with another expensive solution for our failing public school system. That is right. They want to use more of your taxpayer dollars to design and implement a national testing plan. While all parents, including all of us, want to monitor the progress of our children in school, we do not want Washington bureaucrats creating more redtape through a national testing plan. Let us tackle our national education problems by sending the resources and dollars where they will do some good, to the local school districts, down into classrooms, where teachers and parents can apply those resources to teaching children, not lining the pockets of Washington bureaucrats. It is easy as all that. I urge my colleagues to oppose the President's plan on national testing. This body should concentrate on increasing parental choice and involvement, not national testing.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, I have taken the same opportunity to speak to the Members of this House on numerous times regarding a very important issue to this great Nation. Today, Members of this honorable body will have the opportunity to send a clear message. By voting ``no'' on H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, my colleagues will send a clear message that they do not support transporting the world's deadliest material, high-level nuclear waste, through the neighborhoods of their homes or their districts. A no vote will also send a strong message that we do support the environmental measures, such as clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, and the National Environmental Protection Act. A no vote on H.R. 1270 will send a message that we do support States' rights. Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear. Transporting nuclear waste across this country will have devastating environmental consequences. Transporting nuclear waste across this country will cost the hard- working taxpayers of America billions of dollars. Let us rely on sound science, not bad politics. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Today this institution has literally declared nuclear war on Nevada. This institution has failed not just the people of Nevada, but all of America. What could have been an open and honest debate on H.R. 1270 is now limited to a very narrow attempt to approve one of the worst bills that has ever been debated by this body. Yes, the Committee on Commerce voted this out by a wide margin. But let me say that the Committee on Resources said no to this bill, the committee of joint jurisdiction. In my brief time in Congress, I have done countless floor speeches, special orders, sent dear colleague letters out innumerable times, participated in national radio shows, and been interviewed by the national press on this issue. This effort has yielded great strides toward exposing the gross negligent effort of the environmental lobby. It has avoided environmental protection, transportation, safety, and health issues, as all my colleagues have stated. This House has denied those of us in opposition to this bill the opportunity to debate these issues in an open and honest forum. This has failed the American people. I testified before the Committee on Rules asking them to make in order five simple amendments. This was a small request when considering the potential impact that it could have on the State of Nevada and especially on the district that I represent. I am not here to tie up the floor, but to correct the ill- thought-out misgivings of this legislation. This rule will only permit me to offer two minor amendments tomorrow, two minor amendments on a bill that could devastate the environment, pollute our water supplies, contaminate entire communities across America, and maybe, yes, even maybe your community. Vote no on the rule and allow our voices to be heard and permit this institution to do its work.

Mr. GIBBONS

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge every Member of this House to support the Gibbons amendment to this bill. Nuclear waste has a half-life of 10,000 years. The opponents of this measure are thinking 5, 10 years down the road. Who is going to pay for the 9,990 years remaining on this bill and on this nuclear waste tab? It is going to be the taxpayers if we do not pass this amendment. The shortsighted opposition certainly has not got the best interests of the taxpayers of America in sight. Vote yes on this amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states that the Governor of each State with nuclear waste routes shall certify that emergency response teams exist and can properly manage any nuclear accident before transportation plans can be implemented by the Secretary. Governors of States faced with the mandate of accepting highly dangerous irradiated nuclear waste in their State should be given the legal authority to ensure that an emergency response team is adequately prepared to protect the health and safety of those citizens. A Department of Energy report estimated that a radioactive accident could take up to 460 days and cost up to $19.4 billion to clean up. No State can afford the economic consequences of a disaster of this magnitude. Realizing that, these costs cannot include the intangible loss of life that could also occur. Without the passage of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, Governors' voices will be stifled in the oversight of transportation of nuclear waste. Many people feel as I do, that this is an infringement on States' rights. Every State should have the legal authority to make sure their citizenry is safe, and it is the job of that Governor to ensure that all possible remedies are used to ensure that. If a nuclear accident did occur, those first to respond to the disaster must be adequately trained. Local firefighters and police officers will be the first to respond to nuclear truck or train accidents. The International Association of Fire Fighters stated in a letter that the International Association of Fire Fighters represents more than 225,000 emergency responders, who are the Nation's first line of defense during any hazardous material incident, including the transportation of highly radioactive material. Without adequate training, it is easy to see why they are opposing this bill. It is the responsibility of the Governor of these States to uphold their States' constitution and protect the health and safety of its citizenry. How can any Governor expect to protect their States, their constituents, as well as the firefighters and the policemen, without the legal authority granted under this amendment? H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, would mandate that nuclear waste be shipped through 43 States, regardless if consent is granted by these States or not. It is a simple issue of States' rights and public safety. If this body wishes to pass H.R. 1270, then I feel it is our obligation, an obligation that most of us, if not all on this side of the aisle, have stated for a long time, an obligation to return power to the States and allow them every opportunity to protect themselves from the deadly mandate under H.R. 1270 and this Congress. Every State should be prepared to handle a nuclear accident before it happens, not after the deadly contents spill upon the ground. I would ask Members to trust their Governors, their State, and especially their constituency, to support State rights and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman who just spoke would yield me the opportunity to offer him to give back all this money if he would keep his nuclear waste. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Las Vegas, Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment that I am offering today will protect the American taxpayers from being forced to pay out of their own pockets for a highly irradiated nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, thousands and thousands of years into the future. Since 1987, the utility ratepayers have paid, yes, they have, based on electricity generated by nuclear power plants, into the nuclear waste trust fund. These funds were intended to be used for suitability study and construction of a deep geologic storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for high-level nuclear waste. The fees were based on 1 mill per kilowatt hour; 1 mill roughly equals one-tenth of one cent. Unfortunately, despite the presence of this trust fund, the nuclear power lobby is trying to force all American taxpayers to pick up the tab for transporting and storing this waste at Yucca Mountain. Why? Because nuclear waste translates into stranded capital cost for these energy companies. The current Nuclear Waste Policy Act assumes that a permanent storage facility would be ready by 1998. However, this option is not available. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act states in section 111(a)(5) and 131(a)(1) that the responsibility for interim storage rests directly upon the generators of high-level waste. However, yet again, these poster boys for corporate welfare want American taxpayers to take all legal responsibility and provide the funding for this highly irradiated nuclear waste. My amendment would delete the cap within the bill and give the Secretary of Energy the authority to assess a fee on the existing reactors to reflect the amount of funding needed in a given year to cover the cost of operating Yucca Mountain, thereby sparing taxpayers who have no stake in nuclear power or nuclear waste. The problem exists as reactors shut down, Mr. Chairman, which will increase logarithmically into the future. This means that there will no longer be revenue generated nor a revenue stream to fund the development and operation of that repository for thousands and thousands of years following the last reactor shutdown. The likelihood of the utilities being able to cover the cost of permanent repository is very unlikely, and the financial burden will be shifted to the taxpayer. A GAO study has estimated that the Yucca Mountain project construction cost will be nearly $33 billion. There is only $13 billion in the fund right now. The shortfalls would quickly appear if Congress should pass H.R. 1270 without this amendment. The Congressional Budget Office states that the impact of carrying out H.R. 1270 would be a net discretionary spending increase of $1.9 billion over the expected waste fund receipts during the 1998 to the 2002 period. While H.R. 1270 would change the financing of the nuclear waste program from a steady 1 mill per kilowatt hour fee to an adjustable fee tied to annual program appropriations, the bill also dictates that the average fee over the next 12 years cannot exceed 1 mill. Moreover, as electricity deregulation continues and the higher-priced nuclear power is forced to compete with cheaper forms of generated electricity, it is probable that many nuclear reactors will be decommissioned before their licenses expire. One study predicted that 40 percent of operating reactors would shut down early and would therefore cease making contributions to the nuclear waste fund. Without passage of this amendment, the nuclear waste fund will boil and distill down to Congress either making the taxpayers of this country pay for the storage and transportation of nuclear waste or abandon the project altogether. The great people of Nevada do not benefit from nuclear energy, nor do States that lack nuclear power plants. Why should they be required to pay for a nuclear storage facility? Why should they be forced to spend their tax dollars to support a nuclear industry bailout? At a time when Congress is making great strides to balancing the Federal budget, we should continue this laudable goal and allow the Secretary of Energy to increase the mill rate to protect the taxpayers of this country. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I ask Members to protect the American taxpayer and make a common sense vote on a very important fiscal issue. I ask for their support and ask them to vote favorably for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I think he hit the nuclear highlight right on the head today with setting the standards. The standards were set not by scientists, not by doctors who understand radioactive materials, but rather the Congressmen and women, sitting on the Committee on Commerce, established a bill with these radioactive standards in it. Let me tell my colleagues what the standard really talks about here. We are talking about 100 millirems. The standard is clearly far above any other standard established in the law today; that was clearly pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. Let me tell Members a little more about nuclear radiation and what one of these nuclear irradiated rods means to us. Now, if you are a person standing one yard away from an unshielded 10-year-old nuclear rod assembly, you would get a lethal dose; that is, a deadly dose of radiation, 500 rems in less than 3 minutes, less than 3 minutes. A 30-second exposure at 100 rems, which is the proposed standard that they have established, a 30-second exposure at the same distance at 100 rems would significantly increase the risk of cancer or genetic damage. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about significant human risk, human life and the establishment of a new standard that was not set by scientific evaluation. It was set by the people on the Committee on Commerce. That is wrong. Vote for the Markey amendment.