Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, this is the dawn of good news for the hard-working taxpaying Americans. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the budget team, the negotiators from both sides of the aisle, both Democrat and Republican, for reaching a tentative budget agreement. As is the case with all compromise, the negotiated tax package does not contain everything or every provision that I would like. It does, however, contain many provisions that will dramatically improve the lives of hard-working men and women throughout this country. Starting next year, the death tax exemption will jump to 1.3 million for small businesses and family farms, making it easier for parents to pass the family business onto their children. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, this budget agreement exemplifies the Republican message that working men and women in America should be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend as they see fit. This is a landmark occasion, and I urge my colleagues to support it, the tax relief bill tomorrow, when it comes to the floor.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join in my colleagues in the previous speaker's comments about the accolades and plaudits of my colleagues on this bipartisan freshman task force, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen], of course, and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] and the fine work and leadership that they demonstrated in this process. In fact I was very honored to be a part of what I think is a very historic freshman task force in an effort to reform campaign finances in our country. Yes, the subject was controversial. As a freshman for the first time, we all have recent and very personal encounters with the campaign finance laws of this Nation. To augment our experience, we had several hearings with groups and individuals with a variety of expertise in this area. It was very constructive for myself personally and for the rest of the Members. It became an environment in which we got to know not just the other Members of the other party and Members in our own class, but we got to know the subject matter a great deal and a lot better than we had before we entered. Almost all of us agreed to one conclusion after this, that the system is broken. Those disagreements that we may have had, and they developed around some of the parts and the existing parts, but we all agreed that the system and how it is broken has a high priority in our consideration for solutions. We want equitable solutions and we want solutions to States which have varying sizes and varying populations, varying mixes in the media and the media markets. Several facets of this issue that bore close scrutiny included soft money, as we have already heard, campaign finance disclosure, campaign spending limits, limits on individual and political action committees and their contributions. Also we considered free or reduced-cost TV rates for candidates. It was interesting to watch our legislation evolve from a broad- based, cure all, almost certain to fail, too narrow specific language that contained no poison pills. We think our product, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997, contains something for everyone. It is not so broad based that it will die of its own weight. I think that our bill, although it does not solve all of the problems nor solve all of the campaign finance ills, at least makes an honest attempt and a start at it, to correct what is wrong. The fact that some of our leaders in each party have expressed problems with it means, and this means to me that this legislation is truly bipartisan. There are some elements that, yes, I would probably want to polish around the edges of the margins, but I am satisfied this bill as a whole is a good one. It satisfies several fundamental problems and it does deserve passage. I am personally in favor of totally eliminating soft money. Of course this means making other sources of funding available such as increasing Federal contribution limits and/or removing coordinated limits between parties and candidates. I also think that most of the money in a campaign ought to come from the district in which the person is elected. This would mean that the people who have a vested interest, for example, in Nevada's Second District would have a greater influence in its politics rather than some outsider. With the population in Nevada so spread out, it can be costly to run a campaign, either as an incumbent or as a challenger. There have been much smaller districts with elections pending, over $6 million for each candidate. That is far too much money to be elected to the House of Representatives. The amount of money any one individual or PAC can contribute ought to be limited. Too frequently, large donors are allowed greater access to influence than is ordinarily afforded most regular constituents.

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

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Mark Twain once described Lake Tahoe as the fairest picture the whole Earth affords. But with an estimated 30 percent of Lake Tahoe surrounding forests that are dead and dying and the lake losing a foot of clarity each year, many vital environmental changes must be made to ensure that we pass on to our children the same wonderful gift of nature in the same pristine fashion as which we once found it. A very important first step in this battle was taken when the President hosted the Lake Tahoe environmental summit this weekend. As a result of these meetings, $48 million in Federal funds were committed to the Lake Tahoe Basin for cleanup and conservation efforts. But most important, the majority of these dollars will be made available to the people of Lake Tahoe and not to a Federal bureaucratic agency. Mr. Speaker, the agreement reached at Lake Tahoe is a shining example that the concerns of environmentalists and private property owners are not mutually exclusive. I applaud all those involved in this weekend's activities.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, there is a new dawn in America for working men and women. The Republican tax cuts will enable all hardworking Americans to keep more, not less, of the money they earn, giving them more freedom to grow, more freedom to prosper, and more freedom to create new jobs for others. It will allow them to meet their personal needs and to fulfill their family responsibilities. A working father and mother will not have to take that second job that takes them away from their kids or from doing the things they enjoy. They will have more time to make a positive difference in their community. They will not have to go into debt or mortgage the family home or business just to send their kids to college. They can pursue that once out of reach dream of starting their own business. Too often, Mr. Speaker, the crushing burden of Federal taxes undermines these vital opportunities and takes away our freedom to pursue our dreams. The Republican tax relief package is a first step in restoring those stolen dreams and freedoms, or creating new opportunities for all Americans to explore and enjoy. I urge all my colleagues to support the Republican tax plan.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his willingness to work with me on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I include for the RECORD an editorial from the Las Vegas Sun. The document referred to is as follows: Let State Nuke Office Do Its Job The Legislature should not overreact to criticism of the state Office of Nuclear Projects or it may unwittingly become a pawn of the nuclear power industry. Lawmakers last week debated whether to impose tight fiscal controls on the agency, which monitors the federal nuclear waste dump study at Yucca Mountain. State and federal audits last year criticized the office headed by Bob Loux for sloppy bookkeeping and possibly spending more than it should have on private contracts. Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, wants the Legislature to oversee the organization, placing its budget in reserve and meting out funds every three months. Raggio's assumption is that 90-day reports to the Interim Finance Committee will produce better accountability. But alloting funds for only three months would destroy long-range planning. Contracts with highly technical organizations could not be continued, wrecking the state's ability to ensure the federal study is scientifically sound. Nevada needs all the technical ammunition it can muster to watch over the politically motivated study at Yucca Mountain. That site was selected by Congress--not scientists--as the most suitable location in the nation to bury about 70,000 tons of highly radioactive waste. Nevadans have long suspected that the study would be railroaded--ignoring or doctoring negative data--in an effort to soothe public opinion about the safety of the site. That's why the Nevada office is important. It provides an essential balance to a one-sided information flow from the nuclear industry and the Department of Energy. Raggio's contention that the office needs closer oversight makes no sense, especially after all deficiencies found in the audits were corrected shortly afterward. And some of the so-called deficiencies were exaggerated. The General Accounting Office criticized Loux's organization for spending $125 an hour to clip newspaper stories, a report which delighted proponents of the dump and industry hacks. What wasn't said was that the office managed to convince the management of seven major daily newspapers that the dump was a threat to public health and they published editorials to that effect. They included USA Today, the St. Louis Post- Dispatch and the San Francisco Chronicle. We fear that overreacting to the audit reports will play into the hands of the well-funded industry lobbyists who want the office shut down altogether. They would be delighted if Nevada could not challenge any of the data promoted by the nuclear industry and would quietly accept the dump. The better course is to require full financial reports during each legislative session, but let the office do its job in the meantime. For more than a year, there have been increasing indications the dump cannot pass scientific muster as a safe site and Nevadans need an alert watchdog to ensure no games are played in these waning days of the study.

Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his understanding and willingness to work with us on this critically important issue. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to discuss the ability of the State of Nevada and all affected local governments to carry out oversight authority of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, granted to them under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Currently, the Department of Energy is conducting tests to determine if Yucca Mountain will be a permanent repository site for nuclear waste. When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was created, Members of this body felt it was imperative for the State of Nevada and all affected local governments adversely affected by the storage of nuclear waste to have the necessary monies to properly oversee tests that the Department of Energy was carrying out to determine whether or not Yucca Mountain is suitable as a permanent nuclear waste site. This was a very critical part of the 1982 Act, because it allowed for the education of Nevada residents as to the scientific validity of the tests that the Department of Energy was conducting, and these resources allowed for State and local governments to perform their own independent tests to ensure that the best science available is used for the site suitability. It has been my experience that the local scientists have been non-biased and have produced needed assurances that only the best scientific data is used to determine the hydrologic and geologic character of Yucca Mountain. We have nearly 1.8 million people in Nevada, and their safety and quality of life should not be ignored in this debate, making it imperative that we provide for the financial resources to ensure that State and affected local governments are able to monitor and report this activity. I am hopeful that the gentleman will work with me in conference to appropriate up to $1,500,000 for the State of Nevada and $6,175,200 for the affected local governments. These appropriation amounts are consistent with the monies appropriated in the Senate fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. As the legislation moves closer and closer to designating Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste repository, it becomes imperative that we address the safety and concerns of the citizens of Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], in a colloquy. As the distinguished gentleman is well aware, the issue of how to best deal with high level nuclear waste is of grave concern to me, to my respected colleague, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], and to all Nevadans. Currently the Department of Energy is in the process of determining whether the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada meets the scientific standards necessary to become a permanent repository for thousands of metric tons of high-level defense and more particularly civilian nuclear waste generated at 109 locations across America. The bill under consideration by the House appropriates $160 million from the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund in fiscal year 1998. In addition to the $190 million recommended from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund, the total amount available for disposal activities authorized under current law is $350 million. Moreover, $85 million in fiscal 1996 funds have not been obligated simply because the release of those funds is subject to the enactment of legislation directing the Department of Energy to establish an interim storage site while permanent site characterization at Yucca Mountain continues. The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and I would like to make sure that it is the gentleman's intent and the intent of the committee that the $350 million appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund is to support ongoing permanent site characterization activities. Our concern and reason for engaging the chairman in a colloquy is to correct the perception which may exist among Members in the House that the appropriation in question has been reserved for site-specific interim storage activities. Simply put, site-specific interim storage activities are not authorized under current and existing law. At this time my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and I would like to respectfully ask the assurance and clarification of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] that the $350 million appropriation recommended in the bill is directly for use only on those program activities associated with the permanent, and not interim, storage of high-level nuclear waste.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, every parent wants to leave their children better off than they were. But as our Government makes it more and more difficult for people to leave the product of their hard work to their loved ones, this American dream is becoming almost impossible. As hard-working men and women reach retirement, they are forced to sell their farms or small businesses because they cannot afford the death tax. Our Taxpayer Relief Act fosters the American dream by lowering this tax and other tax burdens on the shoulders of working men and women. Clearly the best thing we can do for future generations is to help strengthen our economy, and we can do this by giving every homeowner, every inventor, every farmer and small businessman incentives to invest in America's neighborhoods and workplaces. The Republican Taxpayer Relief Act is good for American families, and I urge my colleagues and the liberal Democrats on the other side to stop the distortions, stop the rhetoric, and start supporting real tax relief for the American people.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, Veterans in Politics, a nationally recognized veteran's organization, is honoring Senator Jacobsen at a ceremony this evening in Las Vegas. I would like to have the following comments included in the Congressional Record today for their event. As a fellow veteran with Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, it is my honor and privilege to pay special tribute to a man who has committed his entire life to serving our great State and Nation. ``Jake,'' as he is known to most, is one of the true legends in Nevada politics. Jake is someone who would rather be out there with his sleeves rolled up helping Nevadans than sitting in a restaurant with well-paid lobbyists. His commonsense approach to politics is refreshing and sorely needed in Carson City. Jake's life and his ensuing marriage to beloved Betty is one of true Americana literature. Born in Gardnerville in 1921, Jake has lived there all his life. When the call to duty came to serve his country, Jake enlisted in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Little known to many, he is a survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor. When the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor was recognized in 1991, Jake was one of the most sought after speakers in the State and graciously rose to the occasion. His sense of patriotism is practically unmatched by any other political figure in Nevada. Through his membership in the American Legion, Jake has been committed to preserving and enhancing patriotism and education with such programs as Boys State. Held every year in Carson City, Jake has shared his vast experiences and knowledge of public service with the young men of Nevada. Having served with Jake in the Nevada Legislature, I know first hand of his unwavering dedication to the hard-working families that he represents so well. Jake is also one of the Nevada Legislature's strongest supporters of veterans issues, including bringing a veterans home to Nevada. It has been a true pleasure and honor to work with Lawrence ``Jake,'' Jacobsen and join him in promoting many of the noteworthy causes he has championed. He has been both a mentor and friend providing much appreciated advice since my earliest days as a legislator. Jake has inspired and encouraged all of us in one form or another to maximize our abilities. He has provided us a model to follow which will not be easy to emulate yet will give us something to which we can strive, For that Jake, we will always be grateful. Best wishes in all of the pursuits and endeavors which are still awaiting you.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, our liberal colleagues have used every trick in the book to avoid giving the American people a tax break. After failed attempts at scaring welfare recipients and working taxpayers, now they are trying the same on senior citizens. Well, the truth is the Republican Taxpayer Relief Act will greatly benefit seniors in their retirement years because we believe that those who have worked hard, played by the rules, and saved for retirement should be rewarded, not threatened and not penalized. Opponents of the capital gains tax relief say, ``You're rich if you put money into mutual funds or contributed to a company retirement plan or built a small business with your own sweat and labor.'' But more than half of all taxpayers claiming capital gains have incomes less than $50,000, and many are seniors who are able live a better life by converting their lifelong investments. In fact nearly 80 percent of assets other than homes are owned by the elderly and seniors. No more excuses, my colleagues on the left. For the first time in 16 years, let us give the people of this country a tax break they deserve.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is the end of the week. By now we have heard all the exhaustive cries of our liberal friends over here that the Republican tax bill provides tax cuts for the rich and, as they will have us believe, the rich do not deserve a tax break. However, a close look at who they label as ``rich'' is very revealing. In fact, it reveals a tale of deception on every American worker. According to a recent independent study, the Democratic definition of rich is the total income of any household making more than $56,200 a year. They contend, therefore, that 1.7 million union members are too rich to deserve tax cuts, 2.4 elementary and high school schoolteachers are too rich to deserve a tax cut, 8.1 million government workers, 4.2 million mechanics, repairmen, and construction workers, and the list goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats complain, and they claim that the only equitable way to provide tax relief to the American people is to allow those who pay no taxes to receive a bigger refund. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill provides that much-needed tax relief to hardworking middle-class citizens of this country. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform my colleagues about the newly formed Mining Caucus, of which I proudly serve as the cochair with my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin]. The purpose of the Mining Caucus will be to educate Members on how the wealth of this Nation is produced by the mining industry, which improves the lives and livelihoods of citizens of their districts, and how in turn it is used to sustain the economic growth and job creation of this great Nation. Nearly 300,000 Americans are employed directly by the mining industry. Indirectly, mining accounts for about 3 million jobs, 397 out of 435 congressional districts have a mining presence. This industry plays a hugely important role in our national economy. I urge my colleagues to join the Congressional Mining Caucus. As a reminder, I would say that if it cannot be grown, it must be mined.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment which amends a portion of the bill that has been previously read for amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter of July 14, 1997, with regard to this matter: The Secretary of the Interior, Washington, July 14, 1997. Hon. Ralph Regula, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Regula: Language was included in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations requests for the Department of the Interior in two places to allow, generally, the sale of lands and other real estate acquired incidental to the acquisition of water rights in the Truckee and Carson River basins in Nevada with the revenue from the sale to be deposited to the Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Fish and Wildlife Fund for acquisition of additional water rights for purposes related to the initial acquisitions (i.e., restoration of Lahontan Valley wetlands and recovery of threatened and endangered fish at Pyramid Lake). The two provisions, one for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the other for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), use parallel language with minor changes to correspond to the two separate water-right acquisition programs authorized. Both sets of language stem from the fact that a majority of water-right holders who want to sell their irrigation water rights (and only purchases from willing sellers are allowed) also want to sell the land and other real estate interests that go with the water rights. Except in limited circumstances, the Department of the Interior does not want to retain the land and other realty interests but rather wants to resell the land into the local private market and apply the receipts to continuation of the water-right acquisition programs. I am advised that three questions have been raised with regard to this language. This letter will address each of those in turn: 1. A question has been raised as to whether the language in the pending appropriations measure on page 14, line 4 for FWS and page 31, line 24 for BIA allowing for the sale of land and interests in land ``. . . other than water rights . . .'' means that rights to subsurface water could not be sold. Our understanding is that the only water other than water-righted surface water acquired has been water in domestic wells that is not technically ``water-righted.'' In any case, it was not the Department of the Interior's intent to transfer any rights to these wells to the wetlands but, rather, to sell the domestic wells along with the land and other incidental real property. A suggestion has been made that the intent be clarified by adding the word ``surface'' before ``water rights'' in the language for both bureaus. The Department of the Interior would have no objection to a limited amendment for that purpose. 2. A question has also been raised as to whether the revenue from the sale of lands and interests in lands, other than surface water rights, will be used exclusively for acquisition of water rights tied to the original purpose of the initial acquisition. In other words, will revenue from the sale of lands acquired incidental to acquiring water rights for the Truckee River Water Quality Settlement be used exclusively for further acquisition of water rights to carry out the Settlement and, similarly, will such revenue from the sale of lands acquired incidental to acquiring water rights for the wetlands be used exclusively for water rights acquisition for the wetlands. The Department's intent is that the revenues be used exclusively for acquisitions related to the purpose of the original acquisitions. Accordingly, both bureaus will be advised to use their respective revenues exclusively in accord with this intent. 3. A question has also been raised as to whether the Department of the Interior would consult with the State of Nevada and units of local government with regard to the sale of lands and interests in lands under the proposed provisions. Extensive consultation has taken place previously with the state and with local jurisdictions regarding the purchase of lands under the wetlands restoration and endangered species recovery programs. In implementing these sale provisions, the Department will consult with the state and local jurisdictions, including appropriate planning and regulatory agencies, and other interested persons concerning the sale of such lands. Sincerely, Bruce Babbett.

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, yes. To the gentleman from Washington, I would be happy to explain. This amendment simply is a small technical amendment which changes a phrase on page 14, line 14, to add the word ``surface'' to ``water rights,'' and let me explain by way of this. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs are buying and acquiring water rights in a specific location in the Lahontan Valley for the stillwater wildlife and for preservation of an endangered species fish. They are buying property with surface water rights attached to them so that they can acquire the water right, then take away the water right and resell the land. The language in the bill itself provides that the Secretary cannot sell any water rights attached to the land when he puts it back up for resale after his acquisition, after taking the surface water rights away. All we want to do is reassure the folks, and we have a letter from the Secretary of the Interior to this effect, that he does not object to this proposal, that what they are selling is not land without any water. There are surface water rights and subsurface water rights. What we are trying to do is preserve the right for the Department of the Interior to sell land which has subsurface water rights like wellwater so that land can be sold. In this area of Nevada land without water is valueless.

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

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider a very important issue of juvenile crime. It should be noted that 20 percent, 1 out of 5, of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in this country are committed by individuals under the age of 18. Furthermore, population experts are predicting a 31 percent increase in the youth population by the year 2010. We must act on this issue immediately. H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime and Delinquency Prevention Act, is a very important piece of legislation in this battle. This bill, authored by my Republican colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] provides block grants to States in order to fund juvenile crime control activities, giving much greater flexibility to local officials to best utilize their resources. Equally important, this bill reauthorizes programs to serve runaways and homeless youth and the National Missing Children's Center. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year this body passed H.R. 3, which provided for more effective punishment of juvenile offenders. This legislation will focus on prevention of juvenile crime. I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the Republican leadership for bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge its passage.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have not been listening to Rush Limbaugh this week, but I can only guess how much fun he is having making fun of the other side right now. I am not sure if we could make up anything more ridiculous than what I have been hearing from the left. Only liberal Democrats can possibly turn tax cuts into another welfare program. I guess Rush really does not have to work that hard to get new material. There is always another liberal outrage just around the corner. Here they are complaining that people who pay no Federal income tax, big goose egg on the old 1040, Mr. Speaker, complaining that these people are somehow getting cheated because they cannot get welfare money from a tax cut. Mr. Speaker, this is the mother of all welfare schemes, and if this is what the ``New Democrat'' is all about, then give me back the old ones. Can the President be serious that he wants working people to be stuck with a couple of billion dollars more welfare payments? Well, this is truly a bizarre way of increasing welfare spending.

Mr. GIBBONS

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

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, a new scheme is emerging. Under H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, American taxpayers will be forced to pay for the transportation of nuclear waste across this country. At a time when we are trying to reduce the burden on taxpayers, now they will be forced to pay huge sums for the construction of an expensive interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. And, Mr. Speaker, taxpayers will also be liable for the cost of cleanup of any accident that occurs during transportation, not the nuclear power industry. A DOE contractor report concluded that if an accident were to occur in a rural area during transportation cleanup, costs to the taxpayers could range between $176 million to $19.4 billion. A cleanup in an urban area would cost considerably more, perhaps $9.5 billion just to raise and rebuild the most contaminated square mile. This is a pivotal time in Congress when we are trying to balance the budget and give tax breaks to hardworking Americans. Why then would we want than to shoulder the burdens of H.R. 1270?

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter I received from a constituent of mine from Sparks, NV. This letter tells a story of two women. The first, and author of this letter, works 60 hours or more a week in hopes of saving enough money to get married and have children. The second woman, her cousin, has three children and has been receiving welfare for 13 years. The closing paragraph of her letter sums up the state of things better than I have ever heard. She writes, ``Yes, the liberals take good care of people like my cousin who were smarter than I by deciding to have children, not get married and not go to work so that the Federal Government would take care of her and her children. I was the stupid one, who worked hard and waited to get married before having children. Now my taxes and hard work help pay for my cousin to enjoy her life.'' The Republican tax reduction will help restore common sense and accountability to the process and lift the burden off the shoulders of the hard-working, tax-paying men and women of America. July 1, 1997. Congressman Jim Gibbons, Reno, NV. Dear Congressman Gibbons: I thought you might enjoy reading about how Clinton and the liberals have proved they are pro family. This is a tale of two women. One is 37 years old and has worked since she was 14 years old busing tables at a Holiday Inn. The other woman is 30 and has never had a regular job in her life but she has received welfare assistance since she was 17. The 37 year old recently got married for the first time, became a first time home buyer and has no children. The 30 year old has never been married, lives with her current boyfriend and has three children. The 37 year old owns a car that is 10 years old and only seats two people. Her husband has a 9 year old pick up truck which also only seats two. They would like to purchase a moderately priced used four door car to carry children that they plan to have. The 30 year old recently bought a new Toyota Camry. The 37 year old and her husband now pay more taxes since they got married and the 30 year old pays no taxes. When the 30 year old and her husband have children they will not qualify for the proposed $500 tax credit per child because they make a little more than $75,000 per year on a combined income and are considered rich. The 30 year old will receive a $500 per child tax credit even though she does not pay taxes. The 37 year old recently took a second job at $6.75/hour and her husband works as much overtime as he can to help pay off debt associated with buying the new house so she can afford a new car and have children. The 37 year old woman works 60+ hours a week and sees her husband 1 day a week and in passing during the rest of the week. The 30 year old has lots of free time, as her mother and sisters take turns baby- sitting the three children, while she goes out with her friends and spends time with her boyfriend. When the 30 year old loses her welfare, she plans to take a job but her child care will be paid for by the government. The 37 year old will have to quit her job to take care of children, when she has them, because child care will eat up most of her salary so she has decided it would be better to stay home. The 37 year old is myself and the 30 year old is my cousin who had her first child at 17 because her older sister had a child and received more attention. I make $28,500 per year as a marketing coordinator for an engineering firm. I have worked hard all my adult life and put myself through college. My husband's base salary is about $36,000 per year as a postal worker (for 16 years) but he works a lot of overtime and averages about $47,000 per year. We bring home about $48,000 per year. We both have some money withheld for retirement. When we did our taxes last year we discovered that we are considered to be wealthy (because of our combined incomes) and should therefore pay more taxes. We were penalized for working hard and getting married. Now we find that we cannot afford to have children. If we have children, I will probably have to quit my job to take care of them because day care would cost about $7,800 per year for one child and I don't have relatives nearby who could care for them and I don't qualify for assistance by the federal government to help pay for day care. But I guess quitting my job would be okay because I would then qualify for the $500 per child tax credit because our family income would be under $75,000 per year. Of course we wouldn't have a car that we would all fit in. But at least the child would be safe in the front seat of both vehicles since they don't have air bags. My husband would have to give up his 401K because we would need that extra income too. But that would be okay since we will now have the federal government to take care of us when we get old. So now, we will be penalized for having children. Yes, Clinton and his liberals take good care of people like my cousin who was smarter than I by deciding to have children, not get married and not work so the federal government would take care of her and her children. I was the stupid one, who worked hard and waited to get married before having children. Now my taxes and hard work help pay for my cousin to enjoy her life. Yes, Clinton is pro family. Sincerely, Shelley Read, Sparks, Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I also rise today in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act. As a new member of this intelligence committee, I have had the unique privilege to participate in the development of this act. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], chairman, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], are both to be commended for their incredibly hard work and leadership. Their efforts and stewardship of the committee as a whole and especially the fine work of the committee staff have resulted in an act which provides the United States an intelligence community which is properly equipped, properly funded and properly supervised for the difficult intelligence tasks confronting this Nation well into the future. This is no easy task, Mr. Chairman. Many people think the United States no longer faces the worldwide threat that we once did during the cold war era. However, it would be foolhardy to say that the threats to this Nation have gone away. In fact, one could say that the number of threats has actually increased. The post-cold war proliferation of relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction, the increase of fanatical terrorism and the rise of transnational threats such as drug cartels dictate that we have a stronger, not weaker intelligence capability. It could easily be debated that such threats are more diverse and more difficult to monitor and defend against than was the single major threat we faced during the cold war years. Mr. Chairman, this act works toward an intelligence capability and community that is better postured to deal with these new and diverse threats. There are those who say we spend too much for the Nation's intelligence services and capabilities. Because of security interests, I cannot speak for the specific dollar amount this authorization act recommends for intelligence activities; however, I can say that the security of the Nation does not come cheap. Intelligence is the foundation for maintaining that security, and it has often been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I would submit that a relatively small investment in our intelligence, understanding of the threats to our country, is what is worth much more than the cost of recovering from the damage. Knowledge of our potential foes is without question worth the investment. Is that investment large in terms of real dollars? Yes, of course it is. But again, an ounce of prevention, the same old adage. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with a thought about the future. Specifically with respect to intelligence technology development that this act supports, the Nation's policymakers require valid, useful and up-to-date intelligence on national and transnational threat issues, as I have mentioned. In order to maintain such information in an increasingly complex world, the intelligence community must invest in modern and equally complex technology.