Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time the Palestinian people take one step forward, they take two steps back. When Abu Mazen was elected, he pledged to root out terrorism and end corruption within the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, he has done nothing to help his people. He has continued the corruption that is rampant in the Palestinian Authority, and he has refused to disarm and dismantle the terrorists and their terrorist organizations. We all know that Yaser Arafat did a tremendous disservice to the Palestinian people. He was a disgrace to humanity. Abu Mazen and the Fatah Party have done, sadly, no better. They had a historic opportunity to make peace. Instead, they chose a path of continued corruption, terror, and violence. This resolution sends a strong and unambiguous message: if you choose terrorism, the United States will not support you. Road map to peace is also unambiguous. The Palestinian Authority must denounce terrorism, disarm and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and shut down the terrorist organizations before, before, there can be a two-state solution. Hamas has never accepted Israel's right to exist, and it has never accepted the peace process. It continues to support terrorism and violence. In fact, Hamas not only supports it, it is it. Since 1989, Hamas has killed more than 500 people, including more than two dozen American citizens. Just last week, and this is after the election, so if anybody thinks being elected to the Palestinian Authority is going to moderate Hamas, just last week the leader of Hamas reiterated their commitment to destroy the Zionist state. Hamas also promised that the armed struggle will not end. Hamas' control of the new Palestinian government further undercuts the ability of its government to engage in true reforms and further strengthens the enemies of Israel and those who oppose peace. Hamas must disavow its stated goal of destroying Israel and change its charter to recognize Israel's right to exist as a free and independent Jewish state. Until the Palestinian government recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, renounces its demand for right of return, which will create two Palestinian states, not a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, ceases all forms of incitement and violence, condemns terrorism, dismantles its terrorist infrastructure, and, most important, removes terrorist organizations from the government, Congress must end all U.S. aid. If negotiating with terrorists is not an option for this country, and it is not, then funneling Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to terrorists certainly is not an option either. I argued unsuccessfully while I was standing in this very spot that the United States Congress should not give additional aid to the Palestinian Authority until they demonstrated with deeds, not rhetoric, with deeds that they were serious about making peace with Israel and took concrete steps to show us that they were indeed serious. Unfortunately, my colleagues did not agree with me, and we continued to fund Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority, although they did nothing to earn our trust and they certainly did nothing to earn taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I urge in this resolution that my colleagues stand with me in supporting the resolution that will end all U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist and, indeed, does it with deeds, not words.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a medical issue, I was unable to vote yesterday on rollcall No. 633, H. Res. 602, providing for the consideration of H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lantos for his leadership on this and so many other issues. I rise tonight in strong support of H. Res. 575, a resolution that expresses the sense of the House that Hamas should not be permitted to participate in Palestinian elections, and I urge its immediate passage. I would also like to thank my colleagues who helped author this resolution and move it expeditiously to the floor: Mr. Cantor, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Wexler. The goal of this resolution is to send a strong and unambiguous message to Abu Mazen that Hamas and the other terrorist groups should not be allowed to participate in the upcoming Palestinian elections. They should be prohibited from participating in the government and the Palestinian Authority should take affirmative steps to disarm and dismantle them. When Abu Mazen was elected, he pledged to root out terrorism and end corruption in the Palestinian Authority. To say he has not lived up to his pledge would be a decided understatement. I believe Yasser Arafat did a tremendous disservice to the Palestinian people; and I believe that if Abu Mazen does not step up soon, lead his people and do what he has promised to do, that he will also be doing a tremendous disservice to the Palestinian people. The very first step of the road map to peace is not only the denunciation of terrorism. That is the easy part. It is the dismantling and the disarming of the terrorist infrastructure and terrorist organizations. Abu Mazen has yet to take this essential first step. No one disputes that Hamas is a terrorist organization. It has conducted numerous suicide bombings inside Israel and is responsible for the death of countless innocent people. Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist and has never accepted the peace process. They this week announced, I am sorry to say, they vowed to end the truce they negotiated with Israel and vowed it will end by the end of this year. Instead of striking out against Hamas and instead of stepping up to the plate and disarming the terrorists and dismantling their terrorist organizations, Abu Mazen's latest strategy is to try to co-opt them and bring the terrorist organization Hamas into his government. Allowing terrorist organizations to participate in the election process will not see them wake up the day after the election, embrace each other, sing Kumbaya and strive for peace and recognition of Israel. Instead, it will give them a dangerous foothold in the Palestinian Authority within which they can operate and further embolden those who support terrorism and the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas' participation in the election can only continue a long-running cycle of violence and terror. It undercuts the ability of the Palestinian government to engage in true democratic reforms and further strengthens the enemies of Israel and those who oppose peace. Hamas and other terrorist groups should be banned from the upcoming elections and from any future role in government until and unless they recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, cease all forms of incitement and violence, condemn terrorism, and dismantle their terrorist infrastructures.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the goal of passing today's legislation is to help businesses in the gulf coast region reopen their doors and get people back to work. However, this legislation excludes perhaps the most important industry in the region that employs over 50,000 people in Mississippi and Louisiana and pays over $800 million in State and local tax revenue, that is, the gaming industry. The gaming industry has made substantial contribution to the regional economy of the gulf coast and will invest billions of dollars as it rebuilds, making it an essential part of restoring employment, economic growth, and tax revenue to the area. I am dismayed that the biased view of one congressman has resulted in this bill excluding a group of employers that provide good jobs and tax revenue to the hurricane-ravaged region. I am astounded that one Member who has a long-held contempt for the gaming industry can insert language in this legislation, which is supposed to be helping the victims of Katrina, that will prevent thousands of our fellow citizens from going back to work, going back to their homes, reuniting with their families, and begin to live a normal life again. I am angry that we are carving out an exception for one business in this legislation, a legitimate business, a well-regulated business, a business whose companies are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, a business that employs thousands of people in the region and generates millions of dollars in tax revenue. This makes no sense. And I am outraged, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership has caved in and agreed to this provision because it is rumored that this congressman threatened to withhold his support from tomorrow's tax reconciliation vote unless his provision was put in the Katrina vote, contrary to what it will do to our fellow citizens. Trading thousands of jobs for our fellow citizens for a vote is an affront to those people who need these gaming jobs to get back on their feet again. Shame on this body for allowing the gaming industry or any industry to be discriminated against in this legislation. The gaming companies remain committed to the communities and the people in the hurricane-affected region. I hope Congress will come to our senses in conference and ensure that every business is treated fairly and given the opportunity to recover from Hurricane Katrina. This Christmas, while we, Members of Congress, are sitting by our fireplaces in our comfortable homes, surrounded by our families, let us think about the thousands of victims of the Katrina hurricane who are homeless, who are jobless, away from their families this year and maybe next Christmas too, because this single congressman dislikes one business in this country and is putting his personal feelings above the well-being of our fellow citizens. This is a shame. It is an embarrassment, and we ought to rethink this and give tax breaks. If we are giving to one business, we should be giving to all and not be discriminating because of a personal dislike by one Member of this body.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I voted to give President Bush the authority to go into Iraq. I'm not on the left; I'm not on the right. I'm on the side of our country and I'm on the side of our troops. I can't imagine why the Republicans have brought this Bush-Hunter resolution to the floor. How does this help our troops serving in Iraq? How does this help make our Nation safer? For the past two years, the Republicans have taken any criticism of this war and labeled it as unpatriotic and as an attack on our troops. Criticizing the way the war has been prosecuted--criticizing the way it has been bungled--is not unpatriotic. It is the ultimate act of patriotism. John Murtha is a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps. He served in Vietnam. He was awarded the bronze star. He received two purple hearts. Now Mr. Murtha has provoked an important debate--one we should be having in this body. Mr. Murtha has the right to have these ideas discussed. Our troops have the right to have these ideas discussed. The American public has the right to have these ideas discussed. We send young men and women to war. We are responsible for them. We must be diligent in our oversight. That's our duty. What we are doing here tonight is a waste of time and does a tremendous disservice to our troops. Talk about patriotism--this is not patriotism. This is a cheap political stunt and an affront to those serving our Nation so far from home. The President wants to stay the course. What does that mean? 700 attacks a week against our troops; no winning strategy; no plan; no end in sight. Let us not embarrass ourselves any further, and vote against the Hunter resolution.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would like to thank Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans and Subcommittee Chairman Miller, as well as Senator Craig and Senator Akaka for moving forward on this bill. As a result of their cooperation, the men and women currently receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a well-deserved increase in benefits as of January 1, 2006. We must not allow the compensation received by veterans, disabled in service to our Nation, to erode in value as the cost of living rises. S. 1234, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2005, will help our service-disabled veterans and their survivors maintain the purchasing power of their benefits in 2006 by providing a 4.1 percent increase in benefits. Single veterans rated at 100 percent disabled will see their benefits rise from $2,299 a month to $2,393 a month. Veterans who are married or have other dependents will see their benefits increased proportionately. This bill will help VA beneficiaries maintain the value of their benefits. No amount of money can adequately compensate our veterans for the deterioration of their health or families for the loss of a loved one. It is important that the benefits, which our Nation provides to partially compensate for such losses, do not lose their value over time. In 2004, over 28,000 veterans in Nevada received disability compensation or pension payments from the VA, and thousands of Nevada families and survivors receive VA cash benefits. The action we are taking here today will help the Nevada veterans and families who depend on these VA benefits. I am very disappointed that the bill does not contain a provision approved by the House earlier this year to include the transitional DIC benefit in the COLA. As a result, the value of the $250 transitional benefit paid to surviving spouses with minor children for their first 2 years of eligibility will unfortunately erode in value in 2006. Unfortunately, our widows and orphans are going to have to survive on a stagnant benefit. Our Gold Star Wives, the spouses of veterans who have perished in our current conflict, and their children certainly deserve better than this. I understand the urgency of passing this COLA so that veterans and their dependents will receive a timely increase in VA benefits. I hope that before this Congress recesses for the year, the increase in DIC benefits and other provisions passed by the House and Senate can be enacted into law. Those who have served this Nation deserve no less. S. 1234 will receive my full support, and it deserves the support of all Members of this House.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not plan to object, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for an explanation of the bill.

Ms. BERKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the full committee.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), ranking member of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, Subcommittee Chairman Boozman, and Ranking Member Herseth for bringing this bill to the floor. Ms. Herseth has been detained at a legislative hearing before the Resources Committee concerning the bill she has introduced. I hope that she will be able to join us before the debate on the bill is completed, but I want to particularly thank her for her input into this important piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3665. As amended, the bill before us would provide greater flexibility to the VA's Adaptive Housing Grant program. It also includes measures to extend the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service. The bill also includes language from H.R. 1773, which Ms. Herseth introduced to make the Native American Veteran Home Loan program permanent. Section 102 of the bill would make permanent the Native American Housing Loan program, currently a pilot program administered by the Veterans Administration since 1993. The Native American Housing Loan program has provided more than 443 direct loans nationwide since its inception. By all accounts, the pilot program has been a great success and, in fact, currently does not require any government subsidy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of the provision would generate savings of $1 million over the next 5 years. Section 103 of the bill would authorize non-Native American veterans married to a Native American spouse and living on trust or tribal land to fully participate in this direct loan program. Because certain tribal sovereignty rules prohibit ownership interest by nonnative persons, they have been unable to qualify for this home loan program. The language in section 103 would make it possible for a nonnative military member or for a nonnative military member or veteran to qualify for a VA loan if he or she shares a meaningful interest rather than an ownership interest with their respective spouse in their home. Madam Speaker, on this Friday we will celebrate and honor the service of our Nation's veterans. Hopefully, we will all be in our home districts attending Veterans Day parades and other activities that we share with our veterans. As I do so, I am mindful that over 3,000 veterans in Nevada are homeless. Most of them are living on the streets in Las Vegas. The number of homeless veterans in America is, I am sorry to say, a national disgrace and simply must be addressed. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, there are already 400 veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who have sought shelter through homeless programs. I strongly support the provision in H.R. 3665 which would reauthorize appropriations for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to help veterans get off the street and working again. With increased efforts to deny VA benefits and, thereby, health care to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, I fear that our efforts to reduce the number of homeless veterans, many who are suffering from PTSD, may be at risk. One homeless veteran who recently contacted the VA Committee had a VA claim pending for PTSD. We learned that because of a perceived pressure to deny claims, regional office adjudicators were afraid to accept the veteran's testimony of his Iraq combat experience, an article naming him and describing the attack, and a statement of his soldier passenger, who was wounded in the attack, as sufficient credible evidence of a stressor. VA officials later acknowledged that the evidence provided by the veteran met the legal requirements and the claim was approved, finally. This veteran's story is an example of how severely mentally disabled veterans are at risk of becoming homeless due to VA policies. Congress must stop the administration's assault on veterans with severe PTSD. We must also provide opportunities to those veterans who are homeless due to their disabilities. H.R. 3665 will do just this. I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) in including language I had suggested to eliminate the obsolete term ``helpless'' from title 38. Although severely disabled veterans may require significant help with activities of daily life, characterizing them as helpless is demeaning and, quite frankly, inaccurate. The bill under consideration today will benefit our Nation's veterans and deserves the support of all Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, my community has the fastest growing senior population in the United States. I also have numbers of doctors that are telling me they can no longer afford to care for their Medicare patients because of the Medicare reimbursement being so bad. We know that we have to fix this Medicare reimbursement for our doctors so they will continue to be able to afford to treat our senior citizens. In the Senate reconciliation that they are introducing, they have a $10 billion fix so we could help the doctors, so they can continue to take care of our senior citizens. In the House version, they are saying they are not going to include the $10 billion, and the doctors are going to have to take care of themselves. But the misery about this and the hypocrisy is the Republican leadership is telling the doctors, Don't worry about it. We're not going to put it in the budget reconciliation so that you can continue taking care of senior patients. We're going to put it in Labor-HHS. Well, we have already passed Labor-HHS, and there is no $10 billion for the doctors. So that means that we are perpetrating a fraud on the doctors, the patients, and the seniors in this country, and we need not to do that.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Well, I find it absolutely fascinating, and I know being married to a doctor that doctors are about the worst politicians in the world. They do not understand this political process. But they have gravitated over to the Republican side of the aisle when they were talking about tort reform, although it is my opinion as a doctor's wife, the other side never had any intentions of passing meaningful tort reform for the doctors. They just kept them hanging on a string. This, which is the AMA's number one priority, to make sure that the doctors are getting appropriately reimbursed for treating Medicare patients, senior patients, this is so much worse for the doctors. And they are still playing games with the doctors, playing games with the seniors, playing games with the American public by saying wink, wink, we will take care of you later. Let us take care of the docs and the senior citizens now when we should, in front of full view, in the daytime, in the light of day; and let us stop this nonsense of trying to sneak money in through the back door. It is disgusting and shameful.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this very important matter. When we talk about the cuts contained in this reconciliation bill, they sound like such large numbers. It is very hard to relate to. When we talk about cutting student loans $14 billion and Medicaid $11 billion, child support enforcement $4.9 billion, food stamps $844 million, it is very difficult to get your arms wrapped around those numbers because they seem so extraordinary that they become almost distant and nonnumbers. But I can tell you for the people that I represent, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has been to Nevada, he has been to my congressional district, he knows what I am dealing with there. In real human terms, when you cut that much out of Medicaid over 200,000 Nevadans, poor Nevadans that depend on Medicaid so that they can have their basic health care needs met, they are going to be plum out of luck. And there are 18,000 students that are going to be affected by cuts in the student loan program. What does that mean? I went through school on student loans. I am the first person in my family to go to college. My dad was a waiter when I was growing up and money was pretty scarce in our home. There is no way my parents could have afforded to put me through college and law school. So what did I do? I depended on those student loans. So as a Member of Congress I am going to cut the opportunity for middle-class Americans to send their kids to school? That would be the worst possible thing to do. And over the next 5 years funding in Nevada that we receive for child support collection is going to be cut by $60 million. What does that mean? That means that we will have a whole lot of deadbeat dads in Nevada that are not going to have to live up to their responsibilities to pay child support because there will be no way to force them to do that. And that would be horrible for the families that these people, that these men are leaving. When we talk about the school lunch program, there are going to be 40,000 children who are going to be impacted if we cut that school lunch program. Now, I am sorry to say, but there are a lot of people in my congressional district that the only meal that these kids get, the only decent, warm meal they get is the one that they get when they go to school with the school lunch program. These cuts would have devastating consequences on ordinary Americans, people that elect us to come here to protect and defend them and to give them a helping hand. This is not a helping hand. This is a slap in the face to all Americans. And I know from my own constituents, it is going to have devastating consequences. But there is something that I really want to talk to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) about because I am not sure that I understand, so maybe I am wrong. As you know I have got the fastest- growing senior population in the United States. We have been told, not threatened by the doctors, but we have been told by doctors because of the decline in Medicare payments for treating older Americans, senior citizens, that many of the doctors are not going to be able to treat Medicare patients. So that means that I have a whole lot of senior citizens, 65 years and above, that depend on Medicare so that they can go see their doctor. Now, if I have got doctors and we have got doctors across this country telling us, telling us they can no longer afford to treat Medicare patients. So the other body acted responsibly and they put the requisite amount of money that they needed in order to help the doctors so that the doctors can continue treating older Americans, treating our senior citizens and helping with their health care needs. This body, the Republican leadership here does not include this in our budget reconciliation because they want to get to that $50 billion magic number for whatever reason and they are going to do that on the backs of the doctors and the senior citizens in this country. But here is the rub: my husband is a doctor. He is a nephrologist. He treats a lot of older Americans. He just received an alert from the American Medical Association saying that we need this desperately. We need the Medicare reimbursement fund so we can continue treating our senior patients, but the Republican leadership in the House says that they are not going to put this in the reconciliation bill. But do not worry, doctors, we are going to go ahead and we will put it in Labor HHS. If I am not mistaken, we already passed Labor HHS and there is no reimbursement for our doctors for care for senior citizens. So I do not understand where they think this money is going to be magically coming from. The reality is it is going to cost $10.8 billion in order to get the doctors to where they need to be to treat senior citizens. We are doing the smoke-and-mirror thing. If we are doing a budget reconciliation thing here but we are still winking at the doctors and saying, oh, do not worry, docs, we will take care of you down the road, how are we going to do that? Where are we going to find the money? Does it not come from the same pot? $10 billion is $10 billion, whether it is in budget reconciliation, which would be the more honest place to put it, or whether it is down the road in a piece of legislation that we have already passed. This is not at all fiscal responsibility. I have heard Republican after Republican come down here and talk about how they will put money in Americans' pockets and they need to cut the Federal Government's budget. That is nonsense. They are not doing that at all. What they are doing is deferring it. They would like to have this $50 billion pot of money so they can go back during the election and brag that they are actually saving taxpayers money. They are not saving taxpayers. They are hurting taxpayers. They are hurting the people that we represent, and this is not fiscal responsibility. This is fantasy. Am I wrong in this? Do I have my facts wrong?

Ms. BERKLEY. So what should we do about this? Is this not a bit dishonest for the Republican leadership?

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman. I have to tell my colleagues here that I have been watching them speak up about the things that I care very passionately about, and I thought it was about time that I came down here and lent my support and my voice because they should not be carrying the burden for the rest of us. When they talk about student loans, I went through college and law school on student loans. My dad was a waiter when I was growing up, and there was not very much money, and no one had gone to college in my family until I went to college. And without those student loans, I guarantee I would not be standing here today. So I put myself in the place of thousands and thousands of Nevadans and millions of Americans that are depending on those student loans to make a difference in their lives. And getting that college education does not change only one's life. It changes the entire direction of one's family. It is an investment in our future. And I wanted to share with my colleagues that a couple of days ago when Senator Reid took to the floor of the United States Senate, as a fellow Nevadan, I do not think I have ever been as proud of him as I was a couple of days ago, and I have been pretty proud of that man for a number of years. But I think he gave us all a voice. And what he said was that we wanted to give this government back to the American people. The American people are entitled to know what went on in the decision- making process to take this country to war. I sit on the Committee on International Relations, and I went to every classified briefing and every confidential briefing because I am the mother of two sons who are 20-somethings, and I knew that I would be sending other mothers' sons and daughters into a theater of war, and I wanted to make sure that I had my facts straight. And when they told me that there were weapons of mass destruction and they located the location, they showed us on the map where these weapons were located in Iraq, and when they talked about nuclear capacity within 6 months to a year and shared with us the strong al Qaeda ties to Iraq and assured us that there was an imminent threat, I supported the President based on those issues. But I bring that up because that is so much a part of what we are seeing now. There is deception, there is deceit. Remember when they said it would only take about 100,000, 150,000 troops to go in? There was one general that said we would need half a million troops. What did they do? They retired him. When the Budget Director, Mr. Lindsey, said it would cost $200 billion, and we are there now, they said, no, no, no, it is not going to cost us anything. It is going to be the oil revenue coming out of Iraq that is going to pay for this war. We went ahead with that based on their justification and what they said. I want to know and I want to have an investigation. Because when I voted, I voted on a certain set of circumstances, and the American people are entitled to know why their sons and daughters are dying in a foreign land. Did we have to do this? If we did, where are we going? And I want to tie this in to the budget, because we are standing here today and knowing that next week we are going to be voting on a budget that is an embarrassment to me. When I was growing up, I always wanted to serve and be a public servant and be in this great body. I never believed I would be taking student loans away from youngsters who are just like I was. I never dreamed I would be taking poor children and keeping them from getting the health care that this Nation should be providing for them so that they can grow up to be strong adults. I never dreamed that women that depended on child support for their children, that we would be taking away the money to find the deadbeat dads. This, to me, is absolutely an affront to what it is to be an American. We have an obligation to our fellow citizens, and I am afraid and I am embarrassed that we are not living up to our obligations. But we are in the minority. We cannot get anything done in this body. It is the leadership of this body in particular that has to do what is right by the American people. As the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said, why would we be giving more tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country and taking it from the backs of people that cannot possibly afford to pay for these things? Why would we take student loans away from youngsters? Why would we take quality health care away from children? Why would we take the opportunity to get your deadbeat father to give you the money, to pay their child support, why would you take that away from people? This is foolish and shortsighted, and it is desperate, and the reason we are desperate is because of that war and the mistakes that we made going in to it. This administration had better come clean. We owe it to the American people. This stonewalling truly has to end. It is an embarrassment, but it is bad for this county. That is the main reason why I am standing here today, because I care enough about the American people, I care enough about my constituents. My constituents are going to be hurt very badly. Two hundred thousand of my fellow Nevadans are going to be without health care if they cut that Medicaid. I have got 18,000 students that are going to be cut away from that student loan program. Over the next 5 years, funding for that child support collection is going to be cut by $60 million. We should not be doing that. I am here to share these statistics with you so you know how devastated the State of Nevada would be if this Republican reconciliation plan goes through.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not part of the 30-something Group, but I was about 20 years ago.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think the gentlewoman is being overly gracious in her compliments. I appreciate it, and I want to return them by telling you how very proud I have been of the three of you standing here every night in the well of the House telling the American people the truth. That, unfortunately, has become a rare commodity in this House.

Ms. BERKLEY. If the gentleman will yield further, if I could chime in a minute, I think what hurts me and offends me the most is I took this information, I went back to the people I represent. I was on every television show, I was on every radio program, and I shared with them the information that I received, and I defended my position. Not only did I defend it, I was an advocate for it. If it was wrong and based on faulty information, I owe it to my constituents to let them know that.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for being so gracious in yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's eminent domain laws exist to help our communities, not to deprive Americans of their businesses and homes. For 11 years, Harry Pappas and his family battled to win back property taken from them in downtown Las Vegas, property which they rightfully owned and that was home to seven shops the family leased to other businesses for more than 40 years. This was a 40-year holding of one family in Las Vegas. In 1994, the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency notified Mrs. Pappas that they were condemning her property. At a hearing only 7 days later, it was decided that the agency would take immediate possession of the property, and the family business promptly demolished. The Pappases' dreams were torn down with the building they lost that day, and their dignity was taken from them as they were forced to watch as a for-profit parking garage was built on their family property. The Pappas family took their case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, hoping that the justices would recognize their fundamental rights under our Constitution. But they were turned away by the Supreme Court, and their case seeking justice was dismissed. So now it is up to us, the United States Congress, to protect other families against the injustice that has been done to the Pappases as a result of the ever-growing expansion of eminent domain. Voting to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development will restore the rightful limits on this power that have been eroded by time. It is time to protect the Harry Pappases of the world.