Regarding Rep. Jim Gibbons' introduction of a bill which "mirrors" the John Ensign/Harry Reid bill introduced in the Senate in June, I would like to offer a few things to think about (that actually have me a little puzzled).
First, why would a congressman introduce the "same" bill, but different in enough ways to complicate the process of the bill in the House after a like-bill was introduced in the Senate?
Second, why does Gibbons wish to deny water rights for wilderness in his bill? This contradicts not only the spirit of the Wilderness Act, but it also substantiates Gibbons' lack of wilderness knowledge. He leaves little doubt as to his position regarding the environment. He may say one thing when interviewed, but his legislative record disagrees.
Third, according to a website called "Roll Call," from introduction to overriding a veto, a bill goes through as many as 14 steps before it becomes law. Introduction of similar bills with differing particulars mandates more time to work out compromises in committee and may be used as a tool to thwart progression of the original bill.
Finally, am I the only one who thinks Rep. Gibbons is more interested in making a name for himself than actually working with the senators in the best interest of Clark County? Wouldn't he rather operate in an expeditious manner considering the few legislative days remaining in this session of Congress? Is Congressman Jim Gibbons a "Johnny come lately" who can do no better than follow on the coat-tails of our senior senator and assistant majority whip and only complicate the issues by editing and improvising a second edition?
Outside of fighting wilderness protection, I'm having a hard time seeing Gibbons' motivation. Whose side is he on?
CHRIS SEGA
archive