Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the newly assumed police powers Bruce Babbitt and the Bureau of Land Management allege to possess. Although the BLM claims these regulations are merely a recodification of the current regulations and do not result in the creation of new authority, this is simply not the case. The proposed law enforcement regulations are an attempt to vastly, and in most cases unlawfully, expand BLM's law enforcement authority. The Constitution of the United States guarantees proper notice describing those actions which may subject its citizens to criminal punishment. However, in this case, BLM has criminalized thousands of minor violations of Federal, State, and local rules that previously were not criminal. The proposed regulations' vague references to any law or ordinance are not constitutionally sufficient, thus making the proposed regulations unlawful and, indeed, unconstitutional. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources will bring BLM and the Department of the Interior before our committee and the American people to explain their new regulations, which have begun to put a stranglehold on the western part of this country. To that extent, we may never recover.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 146.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to discuss something so powerful and hurtful that it cripples the economy, puts a stranglehold on businesses and farms, destroys livelihoods and families, and yet seems unstoppable. The monster that I am discussing is the power that was once granted to Congress in article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress. Today, however, the executive branch of this very Government has taken control of this reserved privilege and holds it captive at the expense of American citizens. To illustrate my point, I would like to discuss newly assumed police power Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and the Bureau of Land Management allege to possess. The proposed law enforcement regulations are an attempt to vastly, and in most cases unconstitutionally, expand the BLM's law enforcement authority by increasing the number and types of actions which may result in the violations of law and substantially increase penalties for violation of such regulations. Let me share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, exactly what powers the BLM is commandeering. A story: On July 24, 1994, a family from New Mexico was on a family outing in the Santa Cruz Lake area in the northern part of New Mexico. After fishing and picnicking for 2 hours, the family loaded up their car and were leaving the area when they were stopped by a BLM ranger. According to a complaint filed by the family's attorney, the BLM ranger approached the vehicle carrying a shotgun and ordered everyone out of the car using threats of bodily harm laced with profanity. The BLM ranger fired his shotgun at the car to show that he meant business. This complaint continues to state that the three men got out of the car and asked why they were being stopped. They asked if it was for fishing without licenses, but they were never asked for their fishing licenses. When a man, woman, and the children tried to leave, the BLM ranger maced the driver and handcuffed him. The driver's mother tried to help her son but was knocked to the ground by the ranger who then stomped on her leg before handcuffing her. After handcuffing the mother, the BLM ranger went back to the driver and sprayed him again in the face with mace. All this time the children were crying and the ranger yelled at them to shut up. According to the complaint, the BLM ranger said he was going to blow their, and I will delete the expletive, heads off. It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. When one of the men picked up a child to comfort him, the BLM ranger put a shotgun to the child's head and ordered the man to put the child down. Two other BLM rangers allegedly arrived and began waving their weapons around as well. The BLM rangers refused to say why they had stopped the family in the first place. The adults were incarcerated, and the BLM ranger did not notify the Attorney General, as they are required to do. Although records at the Santa Fe jail indicate six adults were arrested on charges of assault and hindering a Federal employee, a U.S. magistrate released all those jailed because the BLM did not produce a written complaint and no formal charges were made. To this day the family has no idea, Mr. Speaker, why they were arrested. Remember these are Federal public land management employees who are committing these atrocious acts. It becomes very evident that these power hungry bureaucracies have designated themselves unconstitutional police powers without having proper authority or training. The agents are turning into bullies with little respect for public safety or property. Mr. Speaker, no longer are Americans free. They are chained to the dictatorship of bureaucratic monsters. It is time for Congress to stand up for its constitutional rights and the protection of the American people. This is exactly what I and the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands intend to do tomorrow when we bring the BLM and the Department of the Interior before our committee and the American people. The regulatory authority now used by these Government agencies to create rule after rule and regulation after regulation has begun to put a stranglehold on the Western part of this country to the extent that it may never breathe again.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I come here after reading an early morning report in the Congressional Quarterly that a House bill moving nuclear waste to Nevada is rapidly moving to the House floor for consideration of passage. Before House Members consider this bill, I would like to address two issues, the first being that the Senate companion bill to this, Senate bill 104, was narrowly passed in the Senate and will be vetoed by the President under his promise. Second is the issue that I ask both sides of the aisle to consider, and that is the issue of safety; safety in that they should not vote on a bill that is going to move nuclear waste through their communities, endangering the lives, the health, and the safety of their constituents; throwing away a vote on that issue, throwing away the lives and the health and safety of their constituents, just to prove a point. Mr. Speaker, I would urge both sides of this House to vote no on moving nuclear waste to Nevada, House bill 1270, and I would issue this proclamation: that the Members should consider that their constituents should come first, that their safety and their lives are at issue here.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, when politicians get together and tell me what a wonderful job they are doing, I start to get nervous. But every once in a while, people on both sides of the aisle do manage to arrive at a good agreement. Now, of course, the media will be annoyed; they need conflict. In fact, it is great fun watching the media desperately search for conflict in the balanced budget agreement that was reached between President Clinton and Congress. Even though the media hates good news, the good news needs to be reported. The story that must be reported is that this balanced budget agreement is a win for every American family. It contains permanent tax relief, it contains the largest entitlement reform in history, it expands Medicare choices for seniors, it balances the budget for the first time since 1969. In a town where good news is sometimes hard to find, let us go forward and pass this historic agreement and send a little good news to American families.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, legislation is pending that will cause great economic and environmental harm to communities all across this country. It will require that toxic nuclear waste be shipped near homes, playgrounds, churches, schools, et cetera, on its way to a central storage facility in Nevada. If an accident were to occur, disaster would be imminent as dangerous radioactive materials could be released into the environment. Studies estimate that even minor damage in an accident would be sufficient to contaminate an area half the size of the city of Las Vegas. Cleanup efforts would take well over a year in a rural setting and even longer in an urban area. Before we place the property, health, safety, and welfare of American citizens in jeopardy, much more detailed scientific studies are necessary to safeguard against such accidents. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in strong support for H.R. 478. This bill is probably the most commonsense solution and needed piece of legislation that I have encountered in the 105th Congress. Earlier this year, several States experienced severe flooding, including my State, the State of Nevada. Many people's lives and futures were put in jeopardy or lost because levees did not hold. The underlying question behind this is why. The reason is clear. Several of the levees were not adequately maintained or repaired to properly contain the water because of these very same governmental regulations. H.R. 478 applies commonsense solutions to the Endangered Species Act when the act affects flood control projects. Let me state that the current law only allows the waiver of the ESA after a disaster happens. H.R. 478 amends the law to allow maintenance activities on flood control facilities to take place before a disaster strikes, not afterward. Mr. Chairman, human life cannot be balanced against the life of a beetle or any other non-human species.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the nuclear waste bill currently before the House is a bill that will destroy the environment and endanger the lives of our constituents. In a letter to my office, Deputy Secretary of Energy Charles B. Curtis stated the following: ``If S. 104 and its companion bill, H.R. 1270, were presented to the President in its current form, the President would veto the bill.'' Mr. Curtis goes on to say: ``This bill would provide no practical opportunity to designate an alternative to Yucca Mountain as an interim storage site because it does not provide enough time to designate, license and construct a facility at another site by the year 2002.'' The situation is very clear. This bill could potentially devastate our districts, the environment in our districts, and will be vetoed by the President. Is it really worth voting to destroy the environment in order to bail out the nuclear power companies on a bill that has no chance of becoming law?

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, who should be responsible for paying the $2.3 billion price tag for transporting nuclear waste? Should it be the nuclear power industry, who created and profited from it, or the American taxpayer? Legislation now pending before the House will force taxpayers to pick up the tab for moving this lethal garbage through their own communities and maybe even through their neighborhoods. On top of that, this legislation would also use American tax dollars to pay for the storage of nuclear waste. I think most Americans would agree that the cost of transporting and storing these hazardous materials should not have to be paid by innocent American taxpayers, but rather by those responsible, the nuclear power industry. Let us save America's hard earned tax dollars and return the responsibility of waste to the big power companies.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, almost 10 years ago the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was created by Congress to determine the most suitable site for storing nuclear waste. This board was made up of the most prominent members of the scientific community, not one of whom hails from Nevada. What recommendation did this board make? Well, in their March 1996 report they concluded that there was absolutely no compelling technical or safety reason to remove spent fuel from its current location to a central facility. This expert, nonpartisan review board made this determination based on irrefutable, unbiased, scientific research. What legitimate excuse, then, could justify the moving of nuclear waste from on-site storage, placing the health, welfare, and safety of many citizens in jeopardy? There are still many environmental and safety concerns that must be addressed before we move forward and mandate an unsafe permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, can this Nation afford the cost of cleaning up a nuclear waste accident? A 1975 DOE contractor report concluded that a severe accident involving rail casks could and would result in the release of radioactive materials sufficient to contaminate a 42- square-mile area. If it occurred in a rural area, the estimated cleanup cost of such an accident would range from $176 million to $19.4 billion, and would require up to 460 days. Cleanup after a similar accident in a typical urban area would be considerably more expensive and time consuming, perhaps $9.5 billion just to raze and rebuild the most heavily contaminated square mile. Realize these figures cannot include the intangible cost of a single human life or the disastrous effect it could have on the future of our children. Much more detailed studies are necessary to safeguard against accidents and their cleanup costs before we decide to ship nuclear waste through our districts. Think about it. Could our cities, local communities and States afford these horrific impacts? Remember that safety and science equals a sound solution.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the Congressman from southern Nevada, John Ensign, for his outstanding work on H.R. 449, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1997. H.R. 449 will solve many land, sale and exchange problems for Southern Nevada because Southern Nevada is one of the Nation's fastest growing areas and, with over 87 percent of Nevada owned by the Federal Government, it makes expansion for our communities almost impossible. The Bureau of Land Management and many developers continually disagree over the fair market value of these public lands. The BLM praises the land as being fully developed, trying to maximize the returns on public lands, while developers, on the other hand, feeling the land would continue to be sagebrush without their development, appraise the land as desert. H.R. 449 will change the appraisal process by auctioning off land to the highest bidder. This will ensure the taxpayers of America get the highest probable price for our public lands, and will allow developers to acquire needed lands for community expansion and development. My colleague the gentleman from Nevada, [Mr. Ensign], was helpful in working with me to get report language that assures all Federal proceeds from the land sales would be spent first in Clark County and then priority would be placed on lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. H.R. 449 requires a funding split from land sales, 85 percent going to the Federal Government for the purchase of environmentally sensitive land in Nevada and the remaining 15 percent going to the State of Nevada. The Federal Government's 85 percent, which is used to purchase environmentally sensitive areas, caused me and my constituents great concern. Many times in previous land exchanges, large amounts of land in Northern Nevada were bought and exchanged for small parcels of land in Southern Nevada. This process has destroyed the tax base of many cities and counties and essentially gave the Federal Government more land ownership in Nevada. No longer were ranches farmed, taxes paid or workers hired. Needless to say, land exchanges and sales have been tough for many local governments in Nevada. That is why Congressman Ensign's diligent effort has allowed Northern Nevada to protect its tax base and stop the Federal Government from continually owning more and more of Nevada. The land in the Lake Tahoe Basin is very pristine, and it is in need of protection to guarantee the quality of the lake and the surrounding forests. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1997 accomplishes two very important goals in Nevada. First, it allows land in the Las Vegas area to be developed to accommodate the ever growing number of people moving to that area. And second, it will serve to protect and improve many environmentally sensitive areas in Clark County and the Lake Tahoe Basin while protecting the tax base in Northern Nevada. Finally, this bill is good for the American taxpayer because it protects them in the land sale and exchange process. Mr. Speaker, I would again like to compliment my colleagues on this bill and encourage all Members to support H.R. 449.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 1062.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of House Joint Resolution 62, the tax limitation amendment. As a private citizen in Nevada, I led an effort to amend our State constitution with this very same language. I am proud to say that after passing overwhelmingly in 2 consecutive elections, and may I say both with over 70 percent support of the voters, that initiative, the Gibbons tax restraint initiative, as it became known, has become law in Nevada, a policy that says, we need to put a leash on runaway spending and tax increases. The Federal Government needs to be put on a fat-free diet by making it more difficult to raise taxes, we shift the focus of the balanced budget debate to where it needs to be, on the spending. Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. States with similar supermajority requirements for tax increases experience greater economic growth, lower taxes, and reduced growth in spending.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to discuss something so powerful and hurtful that it cripples the economy, puts a stranglehold on businesses and farms, destroys livelihoods and families, and yet seems unstoppable. This monster that I am discussing is the power that was once granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which reads: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' Today, however, the executive branch of this very Government has taken control of this reserved privilege and holds it captive at the expense of American citizens. The regulatory authority now used by these Government agencies to legislate, to create rule after rule, regulation after regulation, has begun to put a stranglehold on the western part of this country to the extent that they may never again breathe. To illustrate my point, I would like to discuss the police powers Secretary of the Interior Babbitt and the Bureau of Land Management allegedly assume to possess. On November 7, 1996, the BLM posted in the Federal Register new law enforcement regulations. Although the BLM claims that these regulations are merely a recodification of the current regulations and do not result in the creation of ``new authority,'' this is simply not the case. The proposed law enforcement regulations are an attempt to vastly, and in most cases unlawfully, expand the BLM's law enforcement authority by increasing the number and types of actions which may result in the violation of the law enforcement regulations and substantially increase the penalties for violation of such regulations. The Constitution of the United States guarantees proper notice describing those actions which law enforcement agencies may subject its citizens to criminal punishment. However, in this case, BLM has criminalized thousands of minor violations of Federal, State and local rules that previously were not criminal, without explaining the specific acts which are now criminal. The proposed regulations' vague references to ``any law or ordinance'' are not constitutionally sufficient, thus making the proposed regulations unconstitutional. For example, proposed regulation section 9263.1 makes any citizen a criminal who is on Federal lands and who does not comply with all ``State and local laws, regulations and ordinances relating to the use, standards, registrations, operation and inspection of motorized vehicles and trailers.'' The average citizen, and probably many employees of the BLM, are not familiar with the thousands of regulations that have just been elevated to criminal status. Without a specific list of the acts or omissions which would be criminal, the BLM's proposed regulations are again illegal. The egregiousness of these actions does not stop there. The United States Constitution states that a citizen may not be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. These proposed regulations state that an individual who is in charge or charged with a violation by the Environmental Protection Agency can also be charged by the BLM with a violation of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. This is clearly an attempt to submit citizens to double jeopardy and thus circumvent the Constitution. Furthermore, the eighth amendment of the Constitution states ``Excessive bills shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.'' The possibility that one may be fined $100,000 for driving 1 mile an hour over a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit is certainly an excessive fine. The possibility of spending 12 months in jail for the same offense is also cruel and unusual punishment and again unconstitutional. Yet, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior on March 11, 1997, released a press statement titled, ``Secretary Babbitt Directs BLM to Halt Action, Go Back to the Drawing Board with Law Enforcement Regulations.'' However, the press release goes on to further quote Mr. Babbitt directly and states This action does not diminish the legal authority of the BLM law enforcement officers on public land. But it is very clear that we have not done a good job of clarifying regulations and communicating BLM's legal authority under existing Federal statutes to protect health, safety and environmental resources on America's public lands. Let me explain further, Mr. Speaker, and tell my colleagues exactly what powers the BLM is commandeering: On July 24, 1994, a New Mexico family was on a family outing at the Santa Cruz Lake area in the northern part of that State. After fishing and picnicking for 2 hours, the family loaded up their car and were leaving the area when they were stopped by a BLM Ranger. According to a complaint filed by the family's attorney, the BLM Ranger approached the vehicle carrying a shotgun and ordered everyone out of the car using threats of bodily harm laced with profanity. The BLM Ranger fired his shotgun at the car to show that he meant business. The complaint continues: Three men got out of the car and asked why they were being stopped. They asked if it was for fishing without licenses, but they were never asked for their fishing licenses. When one man and the women and children tried to leave, the BLM Ranger then maced the driver and handcuffed him. The driver's mother tried to help her son but was knocked to the ground by the Ranger who then stomped on her leg before handcuffing her. Mr. Speaker, no longer are Americans free, but they are chained to the dictatorship. I oppose this unusual and unlawful assumption of regulatory powers. After handcuffing the mother the BLM Ranger went back to the driver and sprayed him again in the face with mace. All this time the children were crying and the Ranger yelled at them to shut up. According to the complaint the BLM Ranger said he was going to blow their--expletive deleted--heads off. It gets worse. When one of the men picked up one of the children to comfort him, the BLM Ranger put his shotgun to the child's head and ordered the man to put the child down. Two other BLM Rangers allegedly arrived and began waving their weapons around as well. The BLM Rangers refused to say why they had stopped the family in the first place. The adults were incarcerated and the BLM Ranger did not notify the Attorney General as they are required to do. Although records at the Santa Fe Jail indicate six adults were arrested on charges of assault and hindering a Federal employee, a U.S. magistrate released all those jailed because the BLM did not produce a written complaint and no formal charges were made. To this day the family still has no idea why they were arrested. Remember these are Federal public land management employees, who are commiting these atrocious acts. It is not the Federal Bureau of Investigation, nor the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, or any other law enforcement agency. It becomes very evident that these power-hungry bureaucracies have designated themselves unconstitutional police powers, without having proper authority or training. The agents are turning into bullies with little respect for public safety or property. Mr. Speaker, no longer are Americans free, but they are chained to the dictatorship of bureaucratic monsters. It is time for Congress to stand up for its constitutional rights and the protection of the American people.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker I would like to submit as an extension of my remarks, for inclusion in the Congressional Record, the following. This represents Nevada's winning audio-essay in the Veterans of Foreign Wars' 1997 Voice of Democracy Program Scholarship competition. As you can see below, this year's theme, ``Democracy--Above and Beyond'' is very well portrayed in Karianne Bodenstein's entry. Karianne is deserving of this honor and recognition for her efforts. It is with pride that on behalf of my constituents, we wish her continued success in her pursuit of a career in physical therapy and teaching. ``Democracy--Above and Beyond'' The year is 1967. If they could just be someplace else, anyplace else. If they could just rest. If only the rain would stop and they could go home. They lie in the wet ground and they fight. No longer are they in the spring time of their lives with their baseball caps, paper routes, spending their summers playing tag and swimming in the pond. They are American soldiers. They move forward, inch by bloody inch and despite all their longing for safety, comfort and relief they advance and fight some more. Why would our soldiers sacrifice their lives to die on foreign ground, away from family and friends? Could it be their devotion to a democracy that is truly above and beyond all other forms of government. A form of government that instills in its citizens a commitment so strong that no sacrifice is too great. Every year American mothers and fathers struggle to care for their children. Everyday pressures press in and it seems that there is never enough time, never enough money, never enough resources to get ahead. Hard work and sacrifice are their companion. This year America's farmers have endured catastrophic floods, drought and economic uncertainty to fill the country's breadbasket. Head bare, face burned, hands throbbing with fatigue they fought to defeat the rising waters, to nourish the earth and to keep the faith. The nurse nurses the contagious, the handicapped, the incurable, while the teacher teaches tolerance, forbearance and imparts knowledge. The truck driver drives his rig through the cities and towns of America. These committed Americans are caring for, educating and providing for America. These Americans know that the democracy they safeguard is above and beyond all other forms of government. I'm one of America's youth and sometimes our country's problems seem almost insurmountable. I know that I cannot harvest from the past at a greater pace than I help replenish for the future. I know that I must give and not just take and so I embrace the commitment of the soldier, the parent, the farmer, the teacher, all those who have invested in my future and make their diligence, determination and commitment my standard. The year is 1996. There is a couple in the winter of their lives following the path to the silent, black granite wall. They stop at panel twenty-two and he lifts his hand. He runs his fingers over the name etched in the cold stone. Their son's name. She kneels and places a worn-out baseball cap on the ground. All around them are old soldiers dressed in dull fatigues, business suits, on crutches, canes and in wheel chairs. These are Americans who have sacrificed to protect our democratic form of government. As I look to the future, I have no doubt that our democratic form of government will survive and prosper and go on. You show me another country standing so tall, being so proud and having such imagination. Show me another country whose people, whose beating, pounding heart is so caring and so willing to examine its own wounds. And when I hear those voices saying that America is in its eleventh hour. I say no. All I have to do is look to the sacrifices of my parents, to the sacrifice of the soldier, the farmer, the shopkeeper and be willing, as they have, to safeguard this democracy, the best form of government in the world.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her diligent work on H.R. 709, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997. This legislation becomes very important when we address the issues of safety in the environment. H.R. 709 reauthorizes the Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, which was a legislative response to troubles in the National Academy of Sciences with their lack of basic geologic mapping efforts in this country. Being a geologist myself, I can personally attest to the importance that mapping has on many aspects of our society. Geologic maps benefit safety regulations, telling us where natural disasters may occur. They also map fault lines and water flow patterns, which are important to identify when building infrastructure for transportation. Without a detailed geologic map of the United States, we will continue to address issues such as safe drinking water and environmental systems understanding, in the same way someone drives a car at night without headlights. It is important for us to explore and understand what resources we have and how best to use them before we fool-hardily make unscientific decisions without the full knowledge of our underlying environment. I also believe detailed geologic mapping provides the basic information for solving a broad range of societal problems. These include delineation and protection of our sources of safe drinking water, environmental systems understanding and foundations of ecosystem management, the identification and mitigation of natural hazards, such as earthquake-prone areas, volcanic eruptions, landslides and other ground failures, as well as many other land use planning requirements. This legislation would provide an array of benefits for States. It would assist State and local communities with land and water decisions, aid farmers and ranchers with crop decisions, encourage habitat protection for endangered species, and aid the mining industry with site determination for mineral resources. Another benefit of this legislation is its funding formula. The appropriation from the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997, which requires a 50-50 matching of Federal funds from non-Federal sources, will involve State colleges and universities. This, I believe, sets an excellent precedent, allowing the Federal Government, States and colleges to cooperate in a unified, intelligent manner. H.R. 709 authorizes in the fiscal year 1998 $26 million to be appropriated, 75 percent for Federal mapping and supporting mapping activities, 23 percent for State mapping activities, and 2 percent for educational mapping activities. Funds for fiscal year 1999 are $28 million and for fiscal year 2000 are $30 million. Each year the funding formula decreases the Federal mapping activities by 1 percent and increases State mapping activities accordingly. Since fiscal year 1993, approximately $7.5 million in Federal appropriated funds have been matched by State moneys in this cooperative peer review process of producing geologic maps. It appears that only about one-fifth of this Nation is mapped to adequately address the issues described in section 2 of this bill. Congress has finally begun to understand the importance of geologic mapping, and it is time that we use our dollars wisely to bring about the best science to this country. H.R. 709 will achieve this goal in a cooperative partnership with little money and a big return on science that benefits our constituents. To close, Mr. Speaker, the reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 will allow a joint venture of Federal, State and academic institutions to continue on the appropriate path of mapping the geology of this Nation. As section 2, paragraph (B) states, ``Geologic maps are the primary database for virtually all applied and basic Earth science investigation.'' It is because of this continued need for core science that I urge all Members to support H.R. 709, and I believe this bill is in the best interest of science and this Nation as well.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of comprehensive tax reform. My personal belief is that we should completely scrap the current Tax Code and replace it with one that is fairer, flatter and simpler. While I am not certain of which tax reform proposal is best for our country, I am certain that our current system is desperately in need of reform. April 15, millions of Americans will struggle with the current Tax Code in a desperate attempt to comply with the rules and regulations and their obligation to this country. Since enactment, the Internal Revenue Act of 1954, the income tax code has grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 5,577,000 words in 1994. This represents a growth rate of 625 percent for that 40-year period. The Code has been revised well over 400 times through major tax enactments and public laws. The Tax Code has become so overly complicated that the average American taxpayer finds it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to comply. I understand that major reform does not come about overnight and there are significant steps we can take in the interim to help ease the tax burden for the hard working men and women of this country. The first is a reduction of the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax represents a significant disincentive for investment in this country and stifles economic growth. Its reduction would help unlock stagnant investment and allow our economy to thrive. Second, I would like to eliminate altogether the estate tax. The death tax, as it is called, is one of the worst provisions in the Tax Code. This tax penalizes hard working families who work so hard to provide financial security to their children and grandchildren. It often forces businesses and business owners, farmers as well, to liquidate their businesses just to pay this tax. If Congress is serious about easing the tax burden and making our tax system more equitable, capital gains and estate taxes are a good place to start.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong believer in term limits for Members of Congress. I am very excited that as a freshman Member and a Representative, I have taken an active involvement in such an important debate. As my colleague the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] has stated, a majority of Nevada voters have mandated that we support three two-year terms for Representatives and two 6-year terms for Senators. Our amendment reflects these limits and sets no time limit for ratification. Our amendment also does not apply to terms retroactively. It just states that upon ratification, incumbent Representatives may serve no more than 2 additional terms and incumbent Senators no more than 1 additional term. If I may characterize, Mr. Chairman, the reasons that the question of term limits was put on the 1996 Nevada ballot was that the voters, and I feel across America as well as in Nevada, are deeply troubled by Congress and their continuing disregard for their desire for term limits. The voters are concerned that there is a conflict of interest whereby Congress has ignored the voice of the people and failed to pass term limits. They are concerned that without term limits, the effort to get reelected seriously dilutes the effectiveness of Congress. They are concerned that career politicians will perpetuate their dominion over Congress. But most of all they are concerned that the lack of term limits denies the will of our Founding Fathers, that this branch of government remain closest to the people. Nevada has joined the ranks of 23 other States which support term limits. By the terms of the Nevada constitution, the State amendment initiative to support term limits must be approved by the voters in two general elections. Although neither Representative Ensign nor I are standing before you today for any other reason, we are representing the spirit of our voters.