Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was absent September 4, 2018 through September 7, 2018. If I were present, I would have voted on the following:

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Roll no. 380--H.R. 6157--On Motion to Instruct Conferees: Yea

Roll no. 381--H.R. 6439--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: Nay

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Roll no. 382--H. Res. 1049--On Ordering the Previous Question: Nay

Roll no. 383--H. Res. 1049--On Agreeing to the Resolution: Nay

Roll no. 384--H.R. 1635--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: Yea

Roll no. 385--H.R. 1635--On Passage: Yea

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Roll no. 386--H. Res. 1051--On Ordering the Previous Question: Nay

Roll no. 387--H. Res. 1051--On Agreeing to the Resolution: Nay

Roll no. 388--H.R. 6147--On Motion to Instruct Conferees: Yea

Roll no. 389--H.R. 4606--On Agreeing to the Amendment: Yea

Roll no. 390--H.R. 4606--On Agreeing to the Amendment: Yea

Roll no. 391--H.R. 4606--On motion to Recommit with Instructions: Yea

Roll no. 392--H.R. 4606--On passage: Nay

Friday, September 7, 2018

Roll no. 393--H.R. 6691--On passage: Nay

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for bringing this legislation, but especially my colleague, Congresswoman Frankel, for being such a champion for women's rights and issues not only in this country, but around the globe.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act, which, as you have heard by those more eloquent than I, will help to ensure that women's economic development is a fundamental tenet of U.S. development policy.

Women tend to spend more of their money on family costs like education and healthcare than men do. Unfortunately, they lack access to financial services and must rely on riskier and less reliable means of borrowing and saving.

If global gender parity in economic activity were achieved, we could add as much as $28 trillion to the annual global GDP. That should be incentive enough for us to work to ensure that our government understands and has the capabilities to meet the unique economic needs of women, particularly since women represent more than half the world's population and a majority of the world's poor.

Now, in addition to serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am proud to be the co-chair of the Congressional Mongolian Caucus. We are working with the Mongolian Government to support the cashmere production industry to diversify its mining-dependent economy. Notably, an average of 90 percent of the workers in the Mongolian textile sector are female. So if we work to ensure that these women in the cashmere industry have the support, resources, and financial literacy to prosper, we will not only be boosting individual women, we will be boosting an entire economy and will be boosting Mongolia overall.

This is just one example where uplifting women can benefit an entire industry, a society, and a national prosperity, which, in turn, fosters democratic stability. As Lois has said, when women succeed, the world succeeds, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join the chairman in supporting H.R. 5772, which designates the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, as the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse.

The new designation is a well-deserved honor for Judge Mary Lou Robinson. You have heard some description of her outstanding career. Let me add a few more points.

She has served as a judge in Amarillo, Texas, for more than 63 years, with 35 years on the Federal judiciary. When she took senior status as a Federal judge in 2016, she became the longest serving Federal judge in both the Northern District of Texas and the entire Fifth Circuit.

Judge Robinson received numerous awards throughout her career for both her legal and her public service to the community. She was named one of the 100 Legal Legends by Texas Lawyer, the 2016 Jurist of the Year by the Texas Chapters of American Board of Trial Advocates, and the 1973 Texas Woman of the Year by the Texas Federation of Business and Professional Women, among other awards.

Her colleagues reported that she had a reputation for running an orderly and efficient courtroom, and she treated celebrity trials the same way she treated mundane 2-day civil cases.

Judge Robinson certainly served with distinction during her time on the Federal bench. She was deeply respected by the Amarillo legal community, and I am pleased to support this legislation which aptly names the facility in her honor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that we are most impressed by the two people whose names are on this Federal building, and I urge my colleagues to support the designation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 3460. This is the bill, as you heard, that would name the United States Federal courthouse located in downtown Durham, North Carolina, as the John Hervey Wheeler United States Courthouse.

Mr. Wheeler was a prominent community leader. He was a bank president and he was a civil rights lawyer who helped transform the city of Durham over his long and impressive career. Clearly, it is appropriate to name this courthouse after him.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) who brought us this legislation and can speak more personally about the qualities of Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Butterfield, for sharing with us that amazing life story.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of S. 2734 which designates the Federal building and United States courthouse located in Laredo, Texas, as the George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States Courthouse.

I would like to commend Congressman Cuellar, our colleague from Texas, who introduced the House companion to this bill, H.R. 5280, that also has bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), to share with us the impressive story of Judge Kazen's legal and public career.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague Mr. Cuellar for helping explain why it is even more important for us to name this building for Judge Kazen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5846, the Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act, as amended.

This bill was brought to us by my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

The bill requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the efficacy of buyouts of flood-prone property acquired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and examine ways to streamline funding to provide more timely assistance to a larger number of State and local governments.

One only needs to look at last year's hurricane season to see the devastating impacts of these intense storms that were caused by climate change and what they did to our communities. Unfortunately for many residents, the damage and destruction caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria were not occurring for the first time but for a second or third time. These homes have been flooded and then had to be repaired with Federal assistance.

In order to stop this endless repairing and rebuilding of homes in floodplain areas, we must find ways to encourage more homeowners to agree to having their homes bought out, as well as ways to encourage State and local governments to purchase more of these properties.

The bill before you requires the GAO to assess the feasibility of a pilot program that, in exchange for a credit on their flood insurance premiums, property owners would be able to agree, before a flood occurs, to have their residence bought out if their residence is later substantially damaged by flood. The study would also examine the role that nonprofit organizations could play in making buyouts more readily available and more efficient.

We must stop the cycle of destroy, rebuild, destroy, rebuild. This study is a good first step to assess the benefits of buyouts and the feasibility of potential solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to further discuss this.

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, urge passage of this legislation and all the bills that we have brought before you today from this subcommittee.

I want to thank our chairman, Mr. Barletta, for working with us across the aisle on these bipartisan bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent June 12, 2018 due to unforeseen circumstances. If I were present, I would have voted on the following:

Roll no. 258--H.R. 5327--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended: YEA;

Roll no. 259--H.R. 5041--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended: YEA; and

Roll no. 260--On approving the Journal: YEA.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Kihuen for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

Earlier this evening, we heard from the distinguished Member from Illinois, who continues to push the ``Yucca or bust'' policy of the last 36 years.

He claimed that the Nevada delegation is trying to circumvent the adjudication process to determine if Nevada should be the dumping ground for the Nation's highly radioactive nuclear waste.

He said Congress should reject another amendment to save $190 million from being thrown away on this failed proposal because we should let the licensing process play out without some preconceived outcome.

Well, I am sorry, but that is just more BS. If he really believed that, he would be joining us in support of amendment No. 32, which strips the unnecessary policy rider that prohibits closing down the already-shuttered Yucca Mountain.

It predetermines that Yucca Mountain will be the Nation's nuclear waste dump and handcuffs the administration from choosing another site regardless of what any studies show.

If we are serious about solving this problem, we should change direction and allow consent-based siting. We could start that process today and right now by supporting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I share the enthusiasm of the chairman for the Soap Box Derby. I speak in favor of this resolution.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for introducing this resolution every Congress on behalf of the Washington regional delegation.

This annual competitive event encourages boys and girls, ages 7 through 20, to construct, operate, and then race their very own soap box vehicles. It has become a great tradition here in the Nation's Capital, and it has been going on for over 20 years. It provides a terrific opportunity for children to appreciate the workmanship, the craftsmanship, the time, the effort that goes into the construction of these vehicles, and then they get to enjoy the thrill of the race and competition.

The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and with the Capitol Police to ensure that the appropriate rules and regulations are in place and that the event remains free to the public.

I want to encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and then to come out on June 16 to participate in this exciting event.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my colleague and leader.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I represent Las Vegas. I am not sure we can take bets on the Soap Box Derby in Las Vegas, but I would say the odds are in favor of somebody from your district winning if it does occur.

We have no other speakers, and so I just urge my colleagues to vote in favor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2018, I was improperly recorded as a Yes vote on Roll Call No. 198. This was in error and I wish to be recorded as a No on RC No. 198.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill which, much like the Republicans' tax measure, comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. It will have devastating impacts on SNAP recipients across the Nation, including one in seven in Nevada who are on this program. It will take away food assistance from some of our most vulnerable: young children, seniors, and the disabled. It will also force families to jump through extra hoops in order to access other needed benefits like assistance with their electricity bills.

We can and should be doing more to lift families out of poverty and end hunger in the United States. Shamefully, this bill does just the opposite.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Office of the Governor of Nevada in support of House Amendment No. 3.

Office of the Governor,

May 9, 2018.

Dear Members of the House of Representatives, As the House

of Representatives prepares to vote on the Nuclear Waste

Policy Amendments Act of 2018, H.R. 3053, I write as I have

done previously, to reiterate the firm and consistent

position of the State of Nevada on the proposed Yucca

Mountain nuclear waste repository.

My position, and that of the State of Nevada, remains

identical to my previous letters to the House Energy and

Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Environment, in May 2015,

January 2016, April 2016, and April 2017: the State of Nevada

opposes the project based on scientific, technical, and legal

merits. And as I have reminded members of this body on

previous occasions, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)

of 1982, only the Governor is empowered to consult with the

Federal government on matters related to the siting of a

nuclear waste repository.

In the past thirteen months as H.R. 3053 moved through

subcommittee and committee, Members of Nevada's congressional

delegation have communicated our specific concerns about the

provisions of the bill. The full committee responded by

eliminating the unwise and likely unconstitutional proposals

to usurp Nevada's jurisdiction over water resources and air

quality. Nonetheless, our primary objection remains the

fundamentally flawed adherence to the 1987 NWPA amendments

that unfairly and without scientific justification singled

out Nevada as the only state where a proposed nuclear waste

repository is being considered. The bill continues the

truncation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)

licensing proceeding in ways that would limit Nevada's

ability to protect public health and safety and the

environment.

Yucca Mountain is an unsuitable site for a high-level

nuclear waste repository because of its geology and

hydrology. Fractured rock above and below the repository

tunnels would allow highly corrosive oxidizing groundwater to

transport dangerous radioactive material from the waste

packages into the water table, where they would be

transported to an aquifer from which water is used for a

variety of purposes. In 2009, the NRC licensing boards

admitted 218 Nevada contentions, supported by over one

thousand pages of documentation that challenged the safety

and environmental impacts of the DOE license application. If

the NRC process is restarted, Nevada will fully adjudicate

these contentions through trial-like hearings and cross-

examination of expert witnesses. Nevada intends to prevail in

this process, which could take five years and $2 billion to

complete, and which will inevitably be followed by years of

litigation.

H.R. 3053 continues to ignore the primary recommendation of

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, a

consent-based siting process for a repository, and again

singles out Nevada as the nation's only repository. As I have

stated before, if the Congress had embraced such a process

when my predecessor, Governor Kenny Guinn, vetoed the

selection of Yucca Mountain 16 years ago, we would today be

closer to a long-term solution for managing the nation's

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. As a

nation, we should be able to do better than simply repeating

this failed exercise, wasting billions of ratepayer and

taxpayer dollars, trying once again to force an unsafe site

on an unwilling State.

Sincere regards,

Brian Sandoval,

Governor.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, today we must decide if you are going to double down on policies that have been an abject failure for the last three decades or if you will chart a new course that doesn't repeat the same mistakes of previous Congresses.

The first ``Screw Nevada'' bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, Nevada's residents, elected officials, business leaders, and health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from over 100 groups in opposition.

City of Las Vegas,

Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steve Scalise,

House Majority Whip,

Washington, DC.

Dear Sirs: In 1987 Congress voted for the Department of

Energy (DOE) to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca

Mountain without the support of Nevada. Now, the House of

Representatives is planning to consider H.R. 3053, The

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I am writing to express

my vehement opposition to this legislation.

Yucca Mountain would cost U. S. taxpayers billions of

dollars and require the dangerous transportation of nuclear

waste across every state in the country before it arrives in

Nevada, which, by the way, produces no nuclear waste These

transports journey through communities in the nation whose

infrastructures are well-known to be rated at the dangerously

low, D+ level by highly renowned associations of engineers

and scientific professionals. Bridges and tunnels have not

been reinforced in decades, railroad tracks are faulty (as we

well know!), and roads are beyond needing repair and

replacement. No matter the transport vehicle used, the cargo

travels on challenged routes which are unknown to the public

and at times undeclared!

In my tenure as Mayor, every year I have warned my fellow

Mayors of the dangers of this transportation, and every year

the Mayors across the nation have passed a resolution at

their annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting requiring that

the U.S. Department of Energy instead focus on deactivating

and/or repurposing radioactive waste on site. High-priority

research is needed to identify methods for the safe treatment

and storage of radioactive waste at origination locations in

order to mitigate the health and environmental risks of

transporting low, high and mixed level waste to offsite

treatment facilities. Even Mayors with nuclear waste on their

doorsteps understand the dangers of transporting this waste

As Mayor of Las Vegas, I am fortunate to preside over a

beautiful city that is home to over 600,000 residents in one

of the fastest-growing areas in the nation boasting over 2.4

million residents. Additionally, 42 million visitors choose

the Las Vegas valley as a destination annually. Yucca

Mountain is less than 100 miles away from this gem in the

desert. I believe that DOE's Nuclear Regulatory Commission

should be required to have support from state, local and

tribal governments before constructing a nuclear waste

repository anywhere in the country Therefore, I urge you and

your colleagues to vote down H.R. 3053, which rejects science

and ignores our steadfast opposition

Sincerely,

Carolyn Goodman,

Mayor.

Mr. Chair, you have heard that the legislation before you now, ``Screw Nevada 2.0,'' is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an opinion. It is not the facts. Here are the facts:

The legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry.

It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca Mountain.

It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37 percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project.

It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed.

It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits.

Mr. Chair, also, contrary to the sponsor's comments, the area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts.

Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts.

Finally, like New Mexico, the people in Nevada have suffered from tests of atomic weapons that the government told us: Don't worry; it will be safe.

In short, this bill does nothing to really address the root of the problem, and I urge Members to vote against it.

It has cost us 36 years and $15 billion, and all we have to show for it is a hole in the ground. We should be doing consent-based decisionmaking that will move us forward and not continue this failed policy that is bad politics and bad policy.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is also supported by my Nevada colleague (Mr. Kihuen) is very simple and straightforward. It sets up consent-based site decisionmaking as an alternative to ``Screwing Nevada 2.0,'' which just continues the process that has lasted 36 years, has cost $15 billion, is going nowhere in the Senate, and has nothing to show for it but a big hole in the ground.

Consent-based siting, on the other hand, is fair. Nevada doesn't want your nuclear waste. We didn't get any benefits from it, and we didn't generate it. But Texas and New Mexico do want it, so why not let them have it?

It is also a sound policy. It was the number one recommendation of the esteemed Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Now, you can argue the politics, you can distort the science, you can assert it is the law--as though a 1982 policy is the Ten Commandments--but you can't have the truth.

Now, my colleagues don't want this dangerous waste in their backyards any more than Nevadans do. I get that. That is pretty easy to understand. But it is funny, they didn't mind the jobs; they didn't mind the tax revenue, the cheap power, and the political support they got from the nuclear power industry over the years that it has existed. Now, they just want somebody else to clean up their mess.

Well, I say, instead of screwing Nevada one more time, why don't we really work together so we can finally and effectively solve the problem? We could do this with consent-based siting for both interim and permanent storage facilities. This would be a real solution that could take us into the future. So I would urge my colleagues to support the Titus amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I would just respond to two things. I thank the gentleman for recognizing what Nevada did to help win the Cold War. We were the site of atomic testing for years. We still bear those scars. But this is not about military waste; this is about commercial waste.

Second, while I appreciate the chairman's concern about Nevada and giving us benefits, the health and safety of Nevadans is not for sale to the nuclear power industry.

Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague and the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, that is in Washington. It is not in Oregon. If you don't even know where Hanford is, I am not sure you really understand what took place there.

I would just say: The law of the land, that is a great argument. You forgot about that argument when you tried to repeal ObamaCare 60 times and have done everything you can to roll back Dodd-Frank. So law of the land is a pretty weak, specious argument.

This is not just about the safety of Nevada. This is about doing what is right, finding a policy that will work, that is based on consent, that the experts say is the way to go, that has a chance to get out of the Senate and really move us forward so we do quit wasting time, so we do quit wasting money, and we find a real solution to

an issue that does affect the entire Nation.

That is why it should be consent based. That is why I think we should support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would say again, please keep in mind that this has an opportunity to pass. It will really solve the problem. It will not turn the clock back to an old way that has failed, that is faulty science, bad politics, and even worse policy.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words and for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I represent Las Vegas, which is the heart of southern Nevada. We have over 2 million people, and we welcome 40 million people from around the world every year. Let me give you a different perspective.

I have been fighting Yucca Mountain since the 1980s. I do know these issues. I appreciate some of the points that have been made, but some of them are just incorrect. H.R. 3053 is a flawed piece of legislation, and it just doubles down on bad policy and bad politics.

I testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill when it was first introduced last year and noted many of the flaws in the legislation, flaws that remain in the bill.

I also presented a map that showed that, if this waste is taken to Nevada, it will go through over 300 of our Members' districts: past their schools, past their churches, past their businesses, in their backyards. So I want them to keep that in mind as they focus on Nevada.

Other flaws with the bill: First, the bill would bust the cap for the amount of highly radioactive nuclear waste that would be dumped in Nevada. The bill arbitrarily increases the amount by 37 percent, 37 percent over what was authorized in 1987. But what is more, not one of the environmental impact studies, the five-volume safety evaluation report, or any scientific document that relates to Yucca Mountain has studied the impact of increasing that original 70,000-metric-ton cap. So this would not only increase it, they haven't even studied what the impact of the increase would be.

The bill also deems approved changes in the EPA's radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain prior to the NRC's final licensing document. This leads one to conclude that, no matter what challenge they face, they will just figure out a way to get around it regardless of what the science says.

Proponents of this legislation also say that, well, you will get generous host benefits if you take this facility. Well, that is just another falsehood. The provisions in the bill that were changed after it passed the committee in order to bring down the cost of the bill and address the massive scoring issues make our getting those benefits much less likely.

These benefits have to be approved by future Congresses appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars. You don't really think they are going to do that, do you? They shut down the government twice just this year alone over disagreements on spending.

If this legislation were about good policy or addressing the issue or getting the technicalities correct, I would be standing here supporting it, but I just cannot do that the way it is written.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress first passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as you heard, in 1982. It was amended in 1987 just to look at Nevada, not any of the other sites. We call that the ``Screw Nevada'' bill.

Well, we call it that because you didn't have Nevada wanting it to come there. You didn't have the science to put it there. You just screwed Nevada and stuck it there.

Well, this is just more of the same. It is politics, pure and simple. It is three decades later. We have heard we spent $15 billion. All you got is a hole in the ground. This is ``Screw Nevada 2.0.''

I am going to offer an amendment that allows for consent-based decisionmaking, which was the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation, and I hope that we can go in that direction. You allow consent-based for interim storage, why not for permanent storage? That would be the way to solve this problem. That would be the way to move us forward. We wouldn't waste billions more and decades more in terms of time.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the Democratic chair of the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, I rise to celebrate the 35th annual National Travel and Tourism Week, which provides us an opportunity to showcase the importance of travel and tourism in creating economic growth and opportunity and enhancing the quality of life in every district throughout the United States.

Our second largest industry export and our seventh largest employer, travel generates $2.4 trillion for the U.S. economy and supports some 15.6 million jobs. In southern Nevada alone, tourism generates nearly $60 billion annually. Last year, 42 million visitors came to Las Vegas, and we hosted almost 20,000 conventions, which brought in 6 million people from around the world.

So, as we honor the valuable contributions of the hardworking people in this vital industry, I want to remind my colleagues that we need to support its growth and development by making real investments in the country's infrastructure so we can increase the efficiency and reliability of travel and encourage greater tourism to Las Vegas and all the United States. It is about putting out a welcome mat and setting a bigger table.