Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state how deeply disappointed I am that the conference report for H.R. 4954, this vitally important bill that is meant to secure our ports and protect our nation from terrorists, has been amended to include internet gaming language.

Internet gaming has nothing whatsoever to do with port security. It is irresponsible to insert this non-germane language into a homeland security measure.

This Congress should not overreact by restricting the growing industry of online gaming without giving serious review to the potentially negative impacts of such a rash decision.

We know that current efforts by states and the federal government to regulate internet gaming have pushed online consumers to illegal, black market sites that have little to no regulation.

Online gaming is a potential economic opportunity for the State of Nevada and the entire country. Current estimates of online gaming revenues range from $7 billion to $10 billion for 2004 alone, with U.S. bettors providing at least $4 billion or more of that amount.

Many nations, including England, are in the process of legalizing, regulating, and taxing online gaming.

I, along with my colleagues from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley and Congressman Porter, have introduced a bill, H.R. 5474, that would establish a nine-member commission to undertake a complete study of the internet gaming issue. The results of this study would allow the President, the Congress, and every state and tribal government to make informed decisions about this issue and presents a much better alternative to a knee-jerk total ban on the activity.

I voted for H.R. 4954 because it is necessary that we secure our ports against those who wish to do us harm, but I do so with grave disappointment in the decision to add this nongermane internet gaming language.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on September 25, 2006 during rollcall votes No. 471, No. 472, and No. 473 during the second session of the 109th Congress.

Rollcall vote No. 471 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on July 24, 2006, during rollcall votes Nos. 394, 395 and 396 during the second session of the 109th Congress.

Rollcall vote No. 394 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on July 10, 2006 during rollcall votes No. 358 and No. 359 during the second session of the 109th Congress. Rollcall vote No. 358 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2563. Rollcall vote No. 359 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5061. I would have voted ``yes'' on both of these rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on June 19, 2006 during rollcall votes Nos. 289 and 290 during the second section of the 109th Congress. My flight into Washington was delayed because of weather.

Rollcall vote No. 289 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on several votes during the weeks of June 5th and June 12th during the second session of the 109th Congress. I was not able to be in Washington to cast these votes, as I remained in my district to attend my son's high school graduation.

On rollcall vote No. 223, on agreeing to the King of Iowa amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 224, on agreeing to the Kingston amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 225, on the motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 226, on passage of H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2007, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 227, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 228, on agreeing to H. Res. 842, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 229, on passage of H.R. 5521, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 230, on motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to S. 193, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 231, on motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 5254, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 232, on passage of H.R. 5254, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 233, on motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 5449, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 234, on motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to S. 2803, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 235, on consideration of H. Res. 850, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 236, on agreeing to the Obey amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 237, on agreeing to H. Res. 850, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 238, on agreeing to the Smith of Texas amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 239, on agreeing to the Markey amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 240, on motion to Recommit with Instructions, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 241, on passage of H.R. 5252, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 242, on agreeing to the McGovern No. 7 amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 243, on agreeing to the McGovern No. 8 amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 244, on agreeing to the Weiner amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 245, on agreeing to the King of Iowa amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 246, on agreeing to the Kucinich amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 247, on agreeing to the Sanders amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 248, on agreeing to the Hefley of Colorado amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 249, on agreeing to the Blumenauer of Oregon amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 250, on passage of H.R. 5522, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 251, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 794, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 252, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 804, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 253, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 608, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 254, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 338, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 255, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 857, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise today in full support of the underlying legislation and the rule. And I want to say, after listening to the last speaker, it reminds me that there are far too many lawyers in this body and not enough scientists, because oftentimes we hear emotion trumping science.

As the chairman of the Resources Committee Energy and Mineral Resource Subcommittee, I and the committee itself have been adamantly championing the use of renewable resources as well as increasing the production of our own abundant domestic resources.

For far too long, Madam Speaker, our Nation's energy supplies have been influenced by this false choice, a false choice between environmental protection and energy production. With the advancements in technology, we can strike a delicate balance between the two, not because it sounds politically right, but because it is the right policy.

For too long, development and production of our domestic energy has languished, driving investments overseas and increasing our reliance on foreign and often unstable energy resources. Yet we continue the cycle of tolerating irresponsible energy policies that discourage investment in domestic energy production. Relying on foreign and sometimes hostile nations for energy and minerals jeopardizes our national security and leaves American consumers at the mercy of the world energy markets.

For the safety and security of our homeland, I want the United States to be reasonably self-sufficient in meeting the demands of our current energy consumption. One important component of securing our future domestic energy supply is the environmentally responsible development of the 1002 lands in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge that was set aside specifically for oil exploration. This area was set aside in the mid 1960s when oil was less than $5 a barrel, gasoline was less than 25 cents a gallon, because even at that time demand was increasing.

There was recognition then, Madam Speaker, that the need to increase supply was paramount. Today, we are nearing a critical mass in that need. Not only will we be competing with emerging economies like China and India for energy resources in the future, but our own domestic resources that are vital to securing our homeland are left untapped as a result of demagoguery from those who refuse to address the realities of our current and future demand for energy resources.

It is disingenuous to say that ANWR will not provide a significant or important source of oil for our Nation. The USGS has estimated that the oil reserve in this area can replace the oil we get from Saudi Arabia for 30 years, 10.4 billion barrels, which would make the largest oil reserve find in the world since the nearby Prudhoe Bay discovery was done 30 years ago. We cannot wait another day to start securing our energy future.

The responsible development of this minuscule portion of ANWR that was always meant for oil exploration is a good start, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Johnny M. Summers, Outgoing Commander, Hawthorne Army Depot located in Hawthorne, Nevada. LTC Summers took command of the Depot in June of 2004. On May 13, 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission recommended closing the Depot. Soon afterward, Hawthorne realized an ``Army of One'' is all you really need.

From the onset, LTC Summers realized the selection criteria used for recommendation to close Hawthorne had significant flaws. He maintained that it would be a strategic mistake to close the depot due to its significant storage capability, highly skilled workforce, combat terrain training opportunities, and modern reprocessing facilities.

LTC Summers ensured that BRAC Commissioners were provided with the correct data, which countered the recommendation to close the Depot. Thanks in large part to the accurate information provided by LTC Summers, the Commissioners and their colleagues understood the mistakes and the true value the Depot provides the United States Department of Defense.

Thanks to LTC Summers' tireless efforts, the BRAC Commission agreed the evidence presented showed the Hawthorne Army Depot has great economic and strategic significance that justify keeping it open. His efforts were certainly instrumental in our success.

I commend this great commander upon his retirement from the United States Army on September 30, 2006, for his exceptional, dedicated service to the Hawthorne Army Depot, the great State of Nevada and our country. I extend to him my best wishes for continued excellence in his future endeavors.

Thank you, Lieutenant Colonel Summers, for your time and service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on May 22, 2006 during rollcall votes #177 and #178 during the second session of the 109th Congress. The first vote was for S. 1235, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005. The second vote was for H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005.

If present, I would have voted ``yes'' on these rollcall votes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on May 23, 2006 during rollcall votes Nos. 179, 180, 181, 182, and 183 during the second session of the 109th Congress.

Rollcall vote No. 179 was on ordering the previous question.

Rollcall vote No. 180 was on passage of H. Res. 830, providing for consideration of H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Rollcall vote No. 181 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.

Rollcall vote No. 182 was on agreeing to the Weiner amendment to H.R. 5384.

Rollcall vote No. 183 was on agreeing to the Kennedy amendment to

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the time, and Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to stand here in support of this bipartisan amendment, grateful not just as a Member of Congress from Nevada, but as member of the Western Caucus as well.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, in Nevada, the Federal Government owns more than 60 million acres of land, which equates to nearly 87 percent of the State. More often than not, for those of us in the West, the Federal Government is not just our neighbor, it is the neighborhood. With such a large Federal presence comes significant challenges, especially in our rural communities.

The PILT program helps compensate for the inability of our rural communities to generate sufficient property tax revenues needed for schools and local infrastructure because of the overwhelming Federal land ownership, and since Nevada cannot generate revenue from nearly 87 percent of the State, PILT funding is vital. Yet the program has never been adequately funded.

In my congressional district alone, Nevada has lost more than $68 million over the last 10 years because PILT has not been fully funded.

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Taylor, for his efforts to increase PILT this year. The $198 million requested by the administration was very disappointing and would only serve to exacerbate the current funding discrepancy and increase the burden on our rural communities.

Chairman Taylor added $30 million to the PILT this year above the administration's request, and for that we are grateful but we cannot stop there.

This amendment will allow all communities, and especially our rural communities, to continue to provide not only for their residents but for essential services for visitors to our public lands such as law enforcement, emergency health care, and search and rescue.

It bears mentioning again that Nevada cannot raise revenue from more than 87 percent of our State, and many counties across the country face similar loss of tax based revenue.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment that will help the Federal Government fulfill its commitment and obligations to communities and ease the burden of heavy Federal land ownership in our rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the state of Nevada, I would like to recognize the late Gillespie V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery for all of his lifetime achievements. Sonny passed away on May 12 of this year. His 30 years in Congress and 13 years as Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee do not even begin to reveal all that he has done for this country.

As a strong Veterans' advocate, he was the man responsible for rallying Congress to pass The Montgomery G.I. Bill, which offered education benefits to National Guard and Reserve personnel for the first time. Mr. Montgomery also served on the House Armed Services Committee, where he made progress in the quality of life for both the National Guard and reserve units. As a veteran himself, he seemed to establish a stubbornness about him that pressed for improved treatment of veterans on Capitol Hill, where he gained the nickname ``Mr. Veteran.''

After returning home from World War II, he returned to active duty during the Korean War as part of the National Guard. Shortly thereafter, Sonny began his political career in 1956 when he was elected to the Mississippi State Senate, where he served for ten years before joining the United States House of Representatives in 1967. He remained in the National Guard and retired in 1980 with the rank of major general.

In 2005, he received the highest form of civilian honor when President Bush awarded him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sonny Montgomery was the embodiment of freedom and worked every day of his professional life to strengthen our national defense and to ensure that this nation honors the soldiers who protect our freedom.

Not only has this country lost a dedicated serviceman and former Member of Congress, but we have also lost a great friend.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the state of Nevada, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Laurie Richardson of Henderson, Nevada for her achievement and recognition as Mother of the Year by the American Mothers Inc. (AMI). While all 50 states are represented, as well as Puerto Rico, this is their 51st award and the first one that has been awarded to a resident of Nevada since the state's chapter began in the 1940's.

While this award recognizes her only as a mother, Mrs. Richardson is also a distinguished singer in a Grammy award-winning choir, a grandmother of nine, an advocate for children with special needs, and a dynamic guest speaker for special education issues. Mrs. Richardson has volunteered with various school districts for over 29 years before recently becoming a full-time child advocate.

While also raising three of her own children, Mrs. Richardson has opened her home and her heart to raise four foster children as well. Upon her reception of this distinguished award, Mrs. Richardson will represent AMI for the next calendar year as she advocates the importance of motherhood around the country.

Mrs. Richardson has not only set a benchmark for mothers throughout this country, but she is also a great example for all Nevada families. Mrs. Richardson's dedication to children is truly inspirational. As a Representative of Nevada, I am very proud to have her as a part of my community. I commend and congratulate her for this great achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on March 28, 2006 during rollcall votes No. 68 and No. 69 during the second session of the 109th Congress. The first vote was for H.R. 4882--the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act--and the second was S. 2120--the Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005.

If present, I would have voted ``yes'' on these rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my strong voice today in support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005. I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his solid effort in making sure that this House is once again on record in working to protect our children and our families.

I am pleased that an amendment that I offered to the original legislation last year, which was adopted with a unanimous vote, is included once again in today's final bill.

My amendment requires the GAO to study the feasibility of implementing on a nationwide basis a tough annual driver's license registration requirement that my home State of Nevada has imposed on sex offenders.

Just last month, it was reported that there are almost 2,000 convicted sex offenders living in Nevada that are out of compliance with these registration requirements. Something must be done to fix this problem. It is nationwide.

This bill takes a huge step forward in protecting the most vulnerable among us, our children.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical bill and send a message to all that preying on our children will not be tolerated anytime, anywhere.