Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. You bet. An accident like this, if it even allowed a fraction of the radioactive material out of these casks, would contaminate an area that they estimate would be as large as 4 square miles. Cleanup of that 4-square-mile area would cost nearly $19 billion. That is billion with a ``B'' dollars. Because every structure on it in that 4 square miles would have to be razed. The soil, depending upon the penetration of the cesium and other parts of the nuclear reactor content, if they penetrated the soil would also have to be removed. And it would be years before they could actually certify that they have cleaned up that area. Put that in downtown Denver, put that in downtown Cleveland, and put that in downtown St. Louis on the Mississippi River and guess what we have got? We have a national catastrophe within which the Superfund that we have created to handle environmental cleanup would never be able to even address in its wildest, richest moments, let alone the fighting and the attorneys that would take the money.

Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for joining me in this dialog here with regard to the hazards of H.R. 1270. I appreciate his support. I appreciate his eloquence and his delivery of this information. I would like to continue the rest of my time to help educate the American public a little more about the hazards about what is taking place. I know many of my colleagues today, on their way in to work, might have driven down 395, taken the House or Senate exit here over to the Capitol, and could have noticed one of those big red signs that say, no hazardous material transported here. That is because it is not in my backyard are we going to have them transport this material. That is because they do not want it here. It is the classic NIMBY syndrome. But if you look at the transportation of nuclear waste in Maryland, guess what? To those people who do not want nuclear waste in our Nation's Capital, it is actually going to go right through the Nation's Capital, in fact, right through the center of the Nation's Capital; that is, Union Station, just down the street, part of the railway transportation scheme for transportation of nuclear waste on this route. In addition to that, let me talk a little more about what was brought up about hazards of this material and why the American public is being duped in this regard. If we want to take standards and use sound scientific evidence to establish hazards of materials, then all we have to look at is some of our previous experience in the legislative history of this material and come up with a basis of what is taking place. First of all, the Environmental Protection Agency has established the number of millirems per year that is allowable in drinking water. And that is 4, 4 millirems per year is available to be safe in drinking water in our country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, well, we will up it a little bit, for a low-level nuclear waste site, you can be exposed to 25 millirems a year and still be healthy. EPA again, under the waste isolation pilot project plant in New Mexico, where they are taking high level nuclear waste and treating it in storage there as a pilot project, they have got a whopping 15 millirems per year. An independent spent nuclear storage facility is estimated to have 25 millirems per year, and the interim storage exposure range is about 10.3. Under 1270, H.R. 1270, all of those standards, the EPA standards do not have to be met. All of the safety guarantees that we have got environmentally around this country do not have to be met. In fact, they guarantee that they will exceed 100 millirems per year in the transportation of nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, absolutely incredible that we could have the American public be duped by the nuclear power industry into accepting this material. Now, we have heard a lot recently about the site or the location where this material is going to be placed, in a mountain in southern Nevada. Theoretically it is dry, no problem with storing it there. After all, people only live miles away. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, from a scientific basis, after all, I think I am qualified inasmuch as I have a degree in mining geology, I have studied it. I have a master's degree. I understand some of the hazards with regard to geologic settings. Yucca Mountain did not become a safe storage site unless you take the standards and you keep changing and reducing the bar and the acceptable level downward and downward and downward. Yucca Mountain did not get to be Yucca Mountain because of a stable geotectonic event. It became Yucca Mountain due to faulting and geologic volcanic activity which is currently active today. Numerous faulting in the area exists and has continued even today with 621 seismic events of a magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius over the last year. That is incredible. There are at least 33 known earthquake faults in Yucca Mountain itself, this little piece of land that they want to put this. A National Science Foundation study showed that previous testing at the Nevada test site, located 20 miles away, had released plutonium into the surrounding dry rock during one of the underground testings. As a result, they wanted to study that plutonium, very dangerous, half- life much longer than uranium, enriched uranium, to see what the migration into the groundwater would be. Thinking that it would not have gone anywhere in the last 20 years, it has gone nearly a mile. It has migrated a mile. That is 5,000 feet. Well, 10,000 feet below that is the water aquifer, a huge aquifer for all of the Southwest, including Las Vegas, a city of 1.2 million people, as well as other surrounding communities in the area. This tells us one thing, that the standards by which they are judging Yucca Mountain are wrong. It is not geologically safe. It is not geologically stable. The transportation and migration of radioactive nuclides through the rock, through the soil and into the groundwater is more than just an expectation. It is an inevitability. It will occur. We have today probably one of the greatest opportunities to stop this nuisance, to stop this nonsense, to change the policy of this country, to change the idea of sticking it in the ground and walking away from it. As we talked earlier, the cost of transportation, seven times more expensive than storage on site where it is at. You pick the difference up. You pick up that $2.3 billion. It comes out of your pocket, takes away from your children's education, takes away from your highways, takes away from anything, the defense of this Nation. That is $2.3 billion out of your pocket just to move it versus 300 million that the industry itself could pay to store it for the next 100 years while technology is developed to change the hazard of this material so that we do not have to bury it. They say they have built a storage site that will last. I defy them to answer me how they know that. We in this country have never built anything to last longer than 1,000 years. We have never been in existence for 1,000 years. The Egyptians built the pyramids 3,500 years ago. They are not lasting. What is it that they expect to see, 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 years from now when they come across this cavernous Yucca Mountain site where they have buried this nuclear waste? Who knows what we will find at that point in time, if it is accessible, if it has not erupted or some cataclysmic activity destroyed or changed the site itself. I wonder what the warnings will look like 1,000 years from now that say, do not dig here. We buried high-level nuclear waste. What sort of paint will they put on the sign that will last for 1,000 years? Will they chisel it in stone and place it at the entry? Will 1,000 years or 2,000 years from now allow us to have that warning available to those people, if there are people, who may stumble upon that area? We do not know. And that is the question of the day. What do we know? We do not know what it will be like. We do know we have the ability to change the policy today, to ask that we go forward with research and development, that we go forward with science to change the hazard of this material. H.R. 1270 is the transportation of nuclear waste across America. We talked earlier about the odds of an accident. River Front Times, June 12 through the 14, 1996 said it very clearly: No matter how slim the odds of an accident, the potential consequences of such a move are cataclysmic. Under the plan, tons of radioactive material would likely pass through the St. Louis area by either truck or rail a few times a week for the next 30 years. Each cask would contain the radiological equivalent of 200 Hiroshima bombs. Altogether, the nuclear dunnage would be enough to kill everybody on Earth. Maybe a little bit eccentric, maybe a little bit exaggerative in terms of the cataclysmic event that might occur, but certainly not impossible, not farfetched. Whether it is a terrorist act on the railway transportation of this material or a simple accident along the highway or railway with this material, you, the Americans, are both at risk economically, environmentally, personally. I think it is up to America to advise their representatives in Congress of their opposition to H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. We have a chance today to educate our Members through your phone calls, through your letters, requesting that they oppose H.R. 1270. Do not let this opportunity, do not let this time go by without taking advantage of that opportunity because your future, your children's future and the future of this country depend on your ability to see through the nuclear wool that the nuclear industry wants to pull over the eyes of America.

Mr. GIBBONS. Diesel fuel burns at 1,830 degrees, but in addition to that, if cooked long enough, the metal surrounding structures will burn in excess of 3,000 degrees, sometimes. So the problem we have here is twofold. We have natural hazards, diesel fuel from trains and trucks and the metal surrounding it, the incendiary position of the metal; as well as the explosives, if the accident had occurred with a trainload of nuclear fuel and this truck, loaded with explosives; or a terrorist act. Not too long ago in Arizona it was reported that a terrorist blew a bridge out in Arizona and a train derailed. The exposure of hazard to this material in transportation across America exposes a great risk. But it is a fact that these casks are dangerous. I would tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, just what is in one of these casks. That is the critical part. These concrete and steel casks contain 24 nuclear fuel rods, spent nuclear fuel rods. Each one of these casks contains 10 times the nuclear radioactive fallout as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima in the Second World War. That is 10 times that in one cask, in one cask; and we have nearly 80,000 tons of this material being transported primarily from the East Coast over to the West.

Mr. GIBBONS. First, let me address the issue that the gentleman has talking about, dropping these casks. These casks are certified to be fracture-resistent when dropped from a height of 30 feet. It is a lot different from dropping a cask from the top of the Hoover Dam to the bottom, 450 feet. Only 2 months ago we had an 18-wheel tractor-trailer rig in an accident, spun out on the top of that dam, and the back end was hanging over the edge of the dam. It can happen. It is not a farfetched idea. But, what you present is one of the greatest environmental catastrophes for the most populated State in the United States and the most populated community that gets a lot of its drinking water and agricultural water from the Colorado River, and that is Los Angeles, CA. All of those millions and millions of people, the lives along the southern Colorado River would be in danger of jeopardy from a nuclear contamination spill just off of that one roadway.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, the nuclear energy industry is trying to pull the nuclear wool over the eyes of America. A recent report stated that transportation accidents involving dangerous nuclear wastes are inevitable and widespread catastrophic contamination is very, very possible. When comparing similar situations of transporting nuclear wastes and hazardous materials, the future for needless highly dangerous nuclear waste shipments looks frightening. Data from the Department of Transportation reveals that in the last 10 years, just under 100,000 accidents released some form of hazardous material in the United States and its territories. Madam Speaker, these releases caused over $300 billion in damages, over 4,000 minor injuries and 350 major injuries, and over a staggering 100 human deaths. Madam Speaker, these statistics are unacceptable, especially when extremely dangerous nuclear waste and its catastrophic repercussions are similarly shipped across this country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, in the upcoming debate over H.R. 1270, many of my colleagues will make the unfortunate statement that the shipment of the world's most deadly material, nuclear waste, is safe. That is wrong. It is absolutely and totally wrong. The Sandia National Laboratories found that terrorists using a small amount of military explosives could blow just a 6-inch hole in a container, releasing 2,000 to 10,000 curies, a deadly amount of radiation. Furthermore, a 1985 Department of Energy contractor report stated that the release of only 1,380 curies could be sufficient to contaminate, get this, 42 square miles, an area that could take up to 460 days to clean up at a price tag for the taxpayers of more than $620 million. Mr. Speaker, another DOE contractor estimated that that could cost up to $19.4 billion, that is with a B, billion, to clean up. Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the real threat of terrorism and accidents in this country. I say to my colleagues, if it could happen in their district, there is no reason to transport nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, last year, what did 8 out of 10 taxpayers hear when they called the IRS heartline seeking help to tax questions? Nothing, zip, nada. That is right, 8 out of 10 taxpayers could not even get a hello. What could possibly explain this pathetic bureaucratic malaise? Is the IRS understaffed? No, one hundred and six thousand employees should be adequate, even if all they did was just pick up the phone and say hello. Is the problem underfunding? No; $7.3 billion in an annual budget; clearly, that is not the problem. The problem lies with the IRS's lack of accountability. For years the IRS has bullied, harassed, terrorized the citizens of this country while answering to no one, not even answering the phone. Now, with allegations of taxpayer abuse coming to light, layer of Washington bureaucrats after layer shifted the blame for the sorry state of affairs at the IRS until the President has finally been forced to address the issue. How did he respond? He said, quote: ``I believe the IRS is functioning better today than it was 5 years ago.'' Come on, Mr. Speaker. It is time for the President to get real, get serious, and join the Republican Congress and fix the IRS.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, what does it say about the IRS when its own agents fear the IRS? The IRS is an agency that puts extraordinary pressure on good people to do the wrong thing, even to the point of using criminal intimidation tactics to break the hard working men and women of America. There is an old saying out there that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, the awesome power of the IRS has had a corrupting influence on its own agents and everyone knows that unchecked power that is accountable to no one is a guarantee of abuse. Notice how IRS agents who have had the courage to come forward and expose the outrage never say they are talking about a few bad apples or even the occasional rogue acts who give everyone a bad name. No, these courageous agents have all willingly said the IRS has a corporate culture that gives a green light to bullies, gives free rein to intimidation tactics and positively institutionalizes a quota mentality where success is not defined by honest work but by how much money can be seized. This agency is a national disgrace.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, this week the Committee on Resources will mark up H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Act of 1997. This bill tramples the Constitution and violates the basic fundamentals this great country was founded upon. Whatever happened to States rights? Whatever happened to the tenth amendment? How can this body mandate upon the State of Nevada that it must accept nuclear industry waste when Nevada does not even have a nuclear power plant of its own? What about private property rights? In New Mexico a man won a lawsuit which entitled him to $884,000 because nuclear waste was shipped next to his private property and devalued his land. Again, this garbage will travel through 43 States along the most heavily populated highways in this country. Guess who is going to pay off all these private property owners? The American taxpayer. H.R. 1270 is an unfunded mandate, a tax increase, a dangerous idea and a very bad policy. Do not be misled by the nuclear industry lobby. Get the facts. Vote ``no'' on 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No's. 480 and 481. I was unavoidably detained due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 480 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 481.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, what will a temporary nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, mean to private property owners in some districts? It will mean large Government payoffs because the transportation of this radioactive waste will devalue their property. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Mr. John Komis of Santa Fe be awarded more than $884,000 resulting from devaluation damage to his land due to the transportation of radioactive waste past his property. If H.R. 1270 passes, almost 80,000 tons of nuclear waste will be transported across this country, devaluing property along the way. And who will pay for this devaluation in private property? Of course, the American taxpayer. They will foot the bill to support a radical and extremely costly policy mandated upon them by Congress. It is time Members pay attention to this debate and represent the constituency that elected them to protect their property and their rights. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that America cannot afford.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today this House will begin to address the year 2000 census and the adverse effect of sampling. Sampling is not about politics. It is about the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that the actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of Congress within every 10 years in such manner as Congress shall by law direct. Further, title 13 of the U.S. Code authorizes sampling except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress shall be allowed. This exception was enacted because when determining congressional districts, guessing is just not good enough. Nowhere in this country is the case against sampling any clearer than in my home State of Nevada. Nevada has only two Representatives in Congress, and it has nearly 2 million people. Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation. This sampling could greatly underestimate our State's growing population, costing Nevada residents their constitutional right of representation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this Chamber as well as all America on an issue that is extremely important to all of us, and that is the issue of nuclear waste. In a recent advertisement, in fact, an advertisement paid for by the nuclear energy lobbyists, it appeared in the Congressional Daily, dated September 22, 1997, and I quote, ``Thanks to nuclear energy, the air in Maine and New Hampshire is cleaner.'' The ad goes on to say, ``Since nuclear powerplants don't burn anything to generate electricity, they do not pollute the air.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, if nuclear energy is as environmentally safe an energy source as they claim it to be, then why do they not store the wastes associated with those nuclear energy plants in their own States? Why not keep that nuclear waste safely stored at nuclear powerplants throughout the country, as this claim advertises, and let me say, generating electricity with nuclear energy produces a small amount of used nuclear fuel. Today this used fuel is safely stored at 109 nuclear powerplants throughout the country. The headline, Mr. Speaker, should read, ``Thanks to nuclear energy, innocent people all across this country will be put at risk as 80,000 tons or more of nuclear waste is transported through their communities.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people should say thanks, but no thanks. I urge my colleagues to understand the facts, that as nuclear waste is transported through their communities, Americans are put at risk, and I urge them to get the facts on nuclear waste. I urge them to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1270. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the ad from National Journal's CongressDaily. Thanks to Nuclear Energy, the Air in Maine and New Hampshire Is Cleaner Nuclear energy provides electricity to millions of people in Maine, New Hampshire and throughout America, and because nuclear plants don't burn anything to generate electricity, they don't pollute the air. but what about the waste? Generating electricity with nuclear energy produces a small amount of used nuclear fuel. Today, this used fuel is safely stored at 109 nuclear power plants throughout the country. However, the government has the legal responsibility to dispose of this waste beginning January 31, 1998. H.R. 1270 would move used nuclear fuel to a single, engineered storage facility at a remote desert location. It's a common-sense strategy that will ensure nuclear energy continues to provide electricity to Maine and New Hampshire and nationwide for years to come. H.R. 1270: Act Now On Nuclear Waste Disposal.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress has done what many of our liberal colleagues have thought impossible. We balanced the Federal budget while at the same time providing much-needed tax relief for hardworking families of this country. To top it off, the Congressional Budget Office says that we will actually show a surplus as a result of this historic agreement. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to take their eye off that ball. Any tax surplus generated represents too much money the Federal Government has taken from the hard working American people. This money must be used either to reduce the national debt or return to the people in the form of additional tax benefits. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] for introducing the Taxpayer Dividend Act, which will ensure that this very important goal is met. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate the University of Nevada Las Vegas, which this month begins its 40th year of providing quality education to the citizens of Nevada. The University of Nevada Las Vegas began in 1957 as the Nevada Regional Division of the University of Nevada, and in its first year of existence, UNLV consisted of only one building on 80 acres of desert land with a total enrollment of 498. Today, the university includes more than 60 structures, spanning 335 acres, and has an estimated 20,000 students enrolled this fall. With an unyielding commitment to academic excellence and the support of the people of Nevada, UNLV now claims over 35,000 alumni. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate President Harter on this great achievement and wish the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every continued success in the future.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the American people have been well served by the 105th Congress. This Republican Congress has created a balanced budget, given tax relief to millions of Americans, and allowed small businesses and companies to create thousands of new jobs. All this was done because the American people wanted it and, Mr. Speaker, they deserved it. However, before adjournment Congress may consider a bill that the American people do not want, a bill that does not reflect their consolidated voice or best interests. That bill I am referring to is H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Residents in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas and many others certainly do not want to put their children and loved ones at severe risk because their elected officials voted to ship toxic nuclear waste through their neighborhoods and communities. Fellow colleagues, one mishap is all it would take to ravage one of these cities or even your community. Let us not mar the monumental accomplishments of this Congress by voting on a truly dangerous and ill-conceived bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, is there a relationship between how much money is spent on education and how well our students perform academically? After all, if I look at a graph showing the SAT scores since 1960 and spending on education since 1960, I might be tempted to conclude that spending just keeps going higher and higher while SAT scores keep going lower and lower. Further, an independent analysis of how much money spent on education in cities like Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, or Kansas City will show that school districts that spend the most often have the worst schools. What is the logical conclusion? When I speak to teachers in my district and throughout Nevada they all agree that it is important that schools are adequately funded but no one says that the money is the most important thing. So what makes for better student achievement? Most important are loving parents who teach their children that reading, writing, and arithmetic are important. No government program can do that. That is something money cannot buy.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, if polled my guess is that each and every Member of this body, regardless of their political philosophy or party affiliation, will claim to be deeply concerned about education. Well, the President's latest national education standards proposal shows that my liberal colleagues care about education all right, the Department of Education. As though the current 760 Federal education programs are not enough, they want to spend millions more in taxpayer dollars to create yet another bureaucratic program to impose the will of Washington on each and every school district in America. I would urge my liberal colleagues to join those of us who are fighting to send the Federal funding where it will have the greatest effect, to the teachers and students and classrooms of this country. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Education dollars should be spent educating our children, not lining the pockets of Federal bureaucrats.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric surrounding H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, is often technical and rarely illustrative in a personal manner, where the impact will be the greatest. Many American cities around this country are going to be affected by this act. Typical American cities such as St. Louis, MO, will become nuclear refuse hubs as radioactive waste is transported and funneled from subsidized nuclear powerplants through St. Louis to the proposed nuclear storage site in Nevada. Residents of St. Louis should know that this waste will travel along Interstate 70, next to North Memorial Drive and the Mississippi River, meaning that if an accident were to occur and a small fraction of the shipping cask's contents were released, it would be sufficient to contaminate a 42-mile square area that would take 460 days to clean up. This would devastate downtown St. Louis, endanger the people living there, contaminate the Mississippi River, threaten every city and person downstream. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues were sent to Congress to serve and protect their constituents, not mandate a physical, environmental, and economic disaster upon them.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 373, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, what is the secret to getting a great education? Brandnew classrooms, the latest computers, a teaching staff trained in the latest pedagogical methods, record spending on school budgets? Of course not. Common sense alone suggests that a great education is a product of the same ingredients that has made for a great education for centuries: motivated students, parents who care about their children's schooling, and teachers with energy and dedication. What Federal program conceived in Washington, DC, can produce motivated students? What Federal program can make parents care about their children's schooling? What Federal program can produce teachers with energy and dedication? Mr. Speaker, this is truly puzzling for me, that so many people with Ph.D.'s right here in this community in education and journalists with equally impressive credentials tend to forget these commonsense facts so often when it comes to education. It is time to get back to basics. It is time that Washington encouraged them to do it now, and not tomorrow.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. Our liberal colleagues, we just heard, have come up with a solution for a failing public school system. Well, they are going to pass a law that tells students what they must learn. It is that easy. From Washington, DC, the liberals want to set the academic agenda for every school in the Nation. They believe that if Congress and not our schools or teachers tell our students what they must learn, the problem will disappear. The same one-size-fits-all, Washington knows best approach that did not work for welfare is the liberal savior for our public school system. And should this system fail, they have a back-up plan. They will spend billions of taxpayer dollars to create yet another bloated bureaucracy to find yet another way to tell us the system is not working. I urge my colleagues to reject the liberal solution and to end this nonsense and support the Goodling amendment. Let us send the money to the school and the teachers and students where it will do some good and not to the Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in recognizing the tragic death of the Princess of Wales. Princess Diana in her very short life won the hearts of millions of Americans from all walks of life. As a mother, she took her children outside of the palace gates, outside of the wealth of the monarchy, to visit homeless shelters so they could better understand life in the real world. As a caring and compassionate leader, she shook hands with AIDS patients when many were still afraid to touch them. Princess Diana never considered herself a celebrity; instead she thought of herself as a humanitarian, raising millions of dollars for charities both here in America and around the world as well. Most recently, she displayed passion for victims of land mines. In this area, she worked tirelessly to change the foreign policies of all nations to ban the use of military land mines. Mr. Speaker, it is most appropriate that Congress honor the life of Princess Diana today in a resolution praising her numerous achievements and contributions to the world.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, while Members of this House were in their districts during the August recess, ABC News reported to a national television audience just what I have been saying in this very well for the past 8 months, that despite numerous scientific evidence to the contrary, the Federal Government is going to find Yucca Mountain, NV, as a suitable site for nuclear waste storage. The news report highlighted that despite problems with fragile rock formation, migrating groundwater, volcanoes, and active earthquakes, Federal agencies always find a way to ignore them first by lowering the standards and then by lowering the safety standards to the site suitability. More than $3 billion has already been spent on Yucca Mountain, and the site has been found to be scientifically unsuitable. Later this year, Congress will consider a bill that proposes we spend billions more of taxpayer dollars to fund another study that will tell Washington bureaucrats just what they want to hear. This is not just a Nevada issue; this is an issue of safety for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to get the true facts and oppose the H.R. 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. They are very appropriate to this occasion. I agree totally that there is a lot more things we could have done, a lot of things a lot of us would have liked to have done. But we came together as a body of both Democrats and Republicans, and I think we came out with what could be the most important bill of this Congress. I would like to thank the gentleman again, the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, for his dedication on this.