Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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 H.R. 5059. Rollcall vote No. 472 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5062. Rollcall vote No. 473 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6102. If present, I would have voted ``yes'' on each of these rollcall votes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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 S. 1496. Rollcall vote No. 395 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, S. 203. Rollcall vote No. 396 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5534. I respectfully request that it be entered into the Congressional Record that if present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all of these rollcall votes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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 H.R. 5540. Rollcall vote No. 290 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5504. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both of these rollcall votes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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.''

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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 H.R. 5384. I respectfully request that it be entered into the Congressional Record that if present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all of these rollcall votes. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this important matter. Amendment Offered by Mr. Paul

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. 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.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a constituent of mine, Major, Retired, George Small. At 98 years of age, Major Small is the oldest living survivor of the Bataan Death March in the State of Nevada. Major Small entered active duty for the U.S. Army on April 25, 1941 where he trained to be a Chemical Warfare Officer. He was assigned stateside until he was transferred to Manila, Philippines 6 weeks before the start of World War II and came to Bataan on December 24, 1941 where he was assigned to the 31st Infantry. The 31st was involved in the intense fighting until their surrender on April 9, 1942. After the Bataan Death march, Major Smalls spent 3 years and 5 months as a POW in five different camps until his liberation on September 10, 1945. Major Small was discharged from the Army on November 26, 1946 and remained in the Army Reserve until his retirement on March 1, 1968. Major Small earned the American Defense Service Medal, with bronze star, the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, with 2 bronze stars, the Distinguished Unit Badge, with 2 oak leaf clusters, the Combat Infantry Badge, The Philippine Liberation Ribbon, with bronze star, the WWII Victory Medal, and the POW Medal. Please join me in congratulating this great Nevadan for the sacrifices he has made for this country and to extend him our wishes for continued health and prosperity as he celebrates his 98th birthday. Congratulations, Major George Small.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on February 14, 2006 during Rollcall votes No. 8 and No. 9 during the second session of the 109th Congress. The first vote was for H. Con. Res. 322--Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the contribution of the USO to the morale and welfare of our servicemen and women of our armed forces and their families, the second was S. 1989-- Holly A. Charette Post Office Designation Act. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on these rollcall votes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize the efforts of one outstanding law enforcement official who dedicated much of his life to fighting crime. After serving almost three decades in law enforcement, Grant D. Ashley will retire from the FBI today, January 31, 2006. Grant Ashley began his service with the FBI in 1976 in his hometown of Los Angeles, California. After being appointed as a Special Agent and following a period of training at Quantico, Virginia, Mr. Ashley investigated White Collar and Violent Crimes in the Los Angeles Division and served on the Los Angeles Division SWAT team. Grant Ashley would later serve as a supervisor of Drug Investigation in the Criminal Investigative Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. He would then supervise the Violent Crimes Task Force and a special squad on Organized Crime and Narcotics in Chicago. In the mid-1990s, Mr. Ashley gained responsibility over national security matters in the San Diego division of the FBI, and was then appointed Associate Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Division. In February 1999, Grant Ashley moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, to serve as designated Special Agent in Charge. Three years later he was appointed Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigative Division. In 2004, FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed Grant Ashley to serve as Executive Assistant Director for Law Enforcement Services, where he had oversight over the FBI's broad efforts to support State and local law enforcement. When Director Mueller appointed Mr. Ashley he said, ``Support for our partners in law enforcement is a priority for the FBI and is absolutely vital to our success in fighting terrorism and crime. Grant's background and experience as an investigator and manager make him ideally suited to oversee these efforts. He will bring to bear the same drive and innovation that he brought to criminal investigations to our efforts to improve the FBI's law enforcement services.'' And indeed he did. Mr. Ashley served admirably as he worked to coordinate the efforts of the FBI, such as the laboratory division, forty-seven legal attache offices, the Investigative Technologies Division, and the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, with the dedicated efforts of our State and local law enforcement. He understood the challenges facing our Nation's law enforcement officials, especially now in the 21st century as we fight terrorism at home and abroad. His dedication to improving law enforcement coordination across-the-board will continue to serve as a model for our Nation. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Grant Ashley and to have had the great honor to call him, friend. Today, I also call him a patriot. As he retires from close to three decades of service with the FBI, I would like to thank Grant Ashley for his outstanding service to law enforcement and to his Nation. Grant Ashley's commitment and dedication to fighting crime and law enforcement has made our country safer, and for that we should all thank him and congratulate him on an exceptional career with the FBI.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of those communities in the gulf coast region who have been devastated by the recent hurricanes. However, while well-intentioned, I find today's legislation to spur economic development in the gulf coast region to be significantly flawed in that it specifically excluded a key industry in the area. Never before in any previous disaster relief legislation, has Congress picked winners and losers. We should not start today. Businesses on the gulf coast have invested billions of dollars in infrastructure that Hurricane Katrina reduced to rubble in a matter of hours. The gaming industry employs tens of thousands of people in the gulf coast region. It should be treated equally in legislation seeking to assist the rebuilding of businesses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The gaming businesses are legal, well-regulated, and publicly traded companies that should not be discriminated against in Federal economic assistance legislation. Many people in this region lost everything; their homes, their jobs, personal belongings, and the schools their kids attended. It is regrettable that some in Congress are willing to put the hardship of one displaced individual--who may work for a refinery or a grocery store--over another individual's who happens to work in the gaming industry. This was a terrible disaster and loss for everyone, and Congress today is ignoring that simple fact. I will not support the Gulf Opportunity Zone legislation today, because I am extremely disturbed with the dangerous precedent this sets. I will work with our delegation and the conference committee to ensure that the final bill includes equal treatment for the gaming industry--just like any other business in the gulf coast region.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of two wars, I know that our military men and women fighting overseas watch what we do right here all the time. They see this on TV, they hear it on the radio, and they read our words in the newspapers. I know our brave men and women want to see their brave leaders, us, those of us in Congress here at home, have the political fortitude, yes, indeed the political stomach, to support their actions abroad. Like many in this Chamber from both sides of the aisle, I have been to Iraq, I have been to Afghanistan, I have met with our troops there, and I have met with them as they have returned home to Nevada. They know, they see, and they hear. They read what we are doing in Congress, and they listen, and they are listening to us today. What message do you want to send to these soldiers on the front line, a message of surrender, or do you want to send a message of support, a message that we will bring them to victory? Some will call this vote symbolic or political. Well, call it what you want, but I want our troops overseas to read about this vote, and I want them to know that we support them. As a veteran of two wars, I know first hand that our military men and women fighting for our freedoms overseas watch our actions at home. They see this on TV, they hear it on radio, and they read it in the newspapers. I know our brave men and women watch to see whether their leaders at home have the political fortitude, and the stomach to support their actions abroad. Like many in this Chamber, from both sides of the aisle, I have been to Iraq. I have been to Afghanistan. I have met with our troops there, and I have met with them as they have returned home to Nevada. They know, see, hear and read what we are doing in Congress, and they are listening to us today. What message do you want to send these soldiers on the front line? A message of surrender or a message of strength and support, that will bring us victory. Some call this vote simply symbolic or political. Well, you call it what you want, but I want our troops overseas to read about this vote. To hear about this vote. And I hope we can demonstrate not through just words, but our actions, that we are with them in this hour. We will remain with them, and supply them, and support them, until the job is done, until we are victorious, and until we can proudly bring them home and applaud their victory.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take on just a little bit of a different tone about this bill that provides a plan to reform our government to really add some savings here. And I want to talk about the subtitle B, section 6, which allows for mining claims, et cetera, to be utilized for our rural communities. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Resources Committee provisions contained in this title. If you oppose the budget bill because of this title, then let me just say patently straight out you are against rural America. My home State is Nevada, and it has 85 percent of the land owned by the Federal Government, and there are few places that are more rural than Nevada. My western colleagues know what I am talking about because they are largely in the same boat that I am in. In the western United States, where a majority of the land is owned by the Federal Government, our rural communities depend on industries like the mining industries for their basic survival. My colleagues from the East tell me that western communities should not be so dependent on one industry for their survival. Well, in this case I would agree with them. Today, we have an opportunity to show our support for diversifying rural economies by giving rural western communities a second chance at survival after one of these mines closes. We are giving them a chance to keep their economic base and to give their families hope for the future. Contrary to the misrepresentation that you have heard from opponents of mining, this is not about putting national parks up for sale or a massive land grab or building K-Marts on every mountain top. This is about sustainable economic development for rural communities that otherwise would have no options when mining companies leave. These provisions will provide jobs and money for schools, law enforcement, hospitals, and other vital services and communities after a mine closure. I urge my colleagues to disregard the half truths and misinformation they have heard about these provisions, stand up for rural America, stand up for this bill, and pass this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on November 7, 2005 during rollcall vote Nos. 570, 571 and 572 during the first session of the 109th Congress. The first vote was on H. Con. Res. 260--Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration of the Relation of the Church to Non- Christian Religions, the second vote was H.R. 1973--Water for the Poor Act of 2005, and the third vote, H. Res. 444--Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on these rollcall votes.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, a bill that seeks to undo the damage wrought by one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in my memory. The court in Kelo decided that the fifth amendment of the Constitution can be hijacked by a rogue, private developer to take homes or private property from hardworking Americans to build new shopping malls and luxury resorts in their place to increase tax revenues. Our Constitution, which every Member of this body has sworn to uphold and protect, has, in essence, been changed by five people who are charged only with interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it. I am not sure how many ways there are to interpret the clause: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' Mr. Chairman, it seems pretty clear to me that an office building owned by a private party that restricts its use to only those who pay rent is not a public use facility; or that a public use is a highway, not a high-rise; or that a public use is a park, not a private parking lot; or that a public use is a courthouse, not a condo. A society that allows its big developers to take the private property of ordinary citizens in the name of economic development is not a free society. The potential for greater profits and higher tax revenue is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned as public use. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, one of those constitutional provisions is the protection of private property. The Founders of this great Nation knew that a government that can take a citizen's property on a whim is a government that can take away everything else as well. H.R. 4128 offers a reasonable solution, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to commemorate the 75 years of service the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided to the servicemen and women of this great Nation. May we never forget, and continue to honor, those who made a commitment to protecting the security of our Nation by joining the Armed Forces. We owe our veterans a tremendous debt of gratitude for this commitment, and commend the VA for their pledge to ensure that they continue to receive support and assistance. The men and women of the VA are dedicated each and every day to meeting the needs of the millions of veterans who have defended our Nation's freedom. Nearly a quarter of a million veterans reside in our great State; a number that continues to grow. The VA ensures that these men and women, who were dedicated to defending our Nation, receive the services they rightly deserve. As a nation, we owe these great Americans a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice for our Nation's freedom and security. With an ever growing population of veterans, may we always be reminded of Abraham Lincoln's philosophy and principles that guide the Department of Veterans Affairs: ``To care for him shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' I join in thanking the Department of Veterans Affairs for their continued work and service for 75 years to our Nation's heroes. May God bless Nevada, America, and our veterans.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain how I would have voted on October 17, 2005 during Roll Call votes #521, #522, and #523 during the first session of the 109th Congress. The first vote was for approving the Journal, the second was H. Res. 457--Recognizing the importance and positive contributions of chemistry and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week, and the third was H. Res. 491--Expressing the sense of the House with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of computer security in the United States, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. If present, I would have voted yes on these roll call votes.