Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very dear friend, the outstanding congressman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. On Wednesday morning I came to the floor of the House to protest the fact that the Republican leadership was holding up the Department of Defense bill because they wanted to attach a ban on Internet gaming. It was more important to the Republican leadership to keep people from playing poker on their computers in their homes than passing a defense bill that would help protect our troops serving this Nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the world. So the last bill that we pass before we adjourn on the vital and important issue of port security contains the ban on Internet gaming. What does a ban on Internet gaming have to do with port security? Absolutely nothing. This section was added to the bill in an attempt to fire up the far- right anti-gaming element of the Republican Party in time for this year's election. They could not sneak it into the defense bill, so they put it into the port security bill. What does banning Internet gaming have to do with port security? I cannot think of a single thing. To ensure that this provision stayed in, they actually prevented the conferees from meeting and offering amendments. That is taking partisanship to a new low even in this Congress where partisanship is the rule rather than the exception. If we must resign ourselves to adding extraneous provisions to conference reports, why don't we add something meaningful that could actually help people? How about stopping the cut in Medicare physicians' reimbursement so that the doctors can continue to treat older Americans? How about something like that that can do millions of Americans some good? But that wouldn't please the far-right ultraconservative anti-gaming types in the Republican Party as much as preventing individuals from wagering on the Internet in the comfort of their own homes. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because it addresses important national security issues. But I hope that the American people, those that are listening to us debate tonight, are aware of the partisan games that are being played with this bill by the Republican leadership in this Congress. I support all of the strenuous objections you have, Mr. Hastings, to this piece of legislation that is important, could have been good, should have been better, and isn't.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member of Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson, for allowing me to speak for a minute. I have a question to ask. I was listening to Mr. Dingell when he spoke eloquently about his disappointment that this bill did not address security when it comes to mass transit, railroads, bus stations, and Amtrak. And when Mr. King got up to respond, he said the reason it doesn't contain any security for mass transit, railroads, bus stations, and Amtrak is because this is a port security bill. And he said it again. This is a port security bill. And he repeated it a third time. This is a port security bill. So can he please explain to me if this is a port security bill, that we can't put protections and security for our buses and Amtrak and mass transit and railroads, how it is that we managed to put a ban on Internet gaming?

Ms. BERKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. BERKLEY. Before I yield again, I know you may not control the rules of the Senate, but how about the House? Do you have any say here?

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. Lantos for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Each day brings something new from Iran, a new boast, a new rant, a new threat. Yet we have made little progress in convincing our allies that the Iranian regime means business, and that business is funding and supplying terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, wiping Israel off the face of the map and denying the Holocaust. We must not allow them to acquire the means to carry out their ambitions. It would be difficult to overstate the danger Iran represents. Unchecked Iranian nuclear proliferation, combined with increasing support for international terrorism, poses a grave threat to United States forces in the Middle East, moderate Islamic Arab countries in the region, the State of Israel. And a nuclear Iran poses just as much of a threat to Europe as it does to the countries in the Middle East. Incomprehensibly, many of our allies seem oblivious to these dangers. Their strategy of negotiations, incentives, and concessions are not working. Stronger measures are necessary. This bill will ramp up the pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and cooperate with the international community. Iran is a radical fundamentalist country headed by a President who I believe is as dangerous to the world community in the 21st century as Hitler was in the 20th century. Every time this man opens his mouth, he proves it. We must deny Iran the technology and financial resources that will enable this regime to carry out its threats. I urge support of this bill.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, Congress is waiting for the Republican leadership to bring the Department of Defense authorization bill to the floor for a vote. So what's holding it up? Believe it or not, the Republican leadership wants to add a provision to the defense bill. To help the troops? No. To add to their salaries? No. To help us buy equipment for them so they will have state of the art equipment? No. It's a provision to ban Internet gaming. And if you guessed that, you are absolutely right. A ban on Internet gaming in the defense bill. How ridiculous is that? At a time when we have brave American men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership is more worried about Americans playing poker on-line than in protecting our troops in the field. The Republicans talk about patriotism and supporting our fighting men and women, but when it comes to voting for our Nation's Defense Department, they are more interested in banning Internet gaming than they are in providing what our troops need in the field of battle. This is a disgrace. Americans should be outraged and we should demand that we pass this Department of Defense authorization without any other additions that have nothing to do with defending our brave men and women.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this week the Republican leadership is sending us home. They are going to spend the next 4 weeks trying to convince the American people that we have actually accomplished something this year. It is going to be a tough sell. This is the most do-nothing Congress in American history. Back in 1948, President Harry Truman dubbed the Congress of that year the ``do- nothing Congress'' after it met for only 101 days. At the end of this week, this Congress will have only met for a total of 79 days. That is 22 days less than the do-nothing Congress of 1948. This is the do-less- than-nothing Congress. And over those 79 days, House Republicans have not passed one piece of meaningful legislation into law. They have been putting on a lot of shows over the last few weeks trying to convince the American people they are actually accomplishing something. Don't believe them. Here is the record. We are days away from a new fiscal year, Congress has not yet passed a budget. Republicans have been saying all year that immigration and border security are their top priority, but we leave this week without a law on either issue. It is no wonder the American people are fed up with Congress. It is time for a change.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for being so gracious with this legislation that is so important to my constituents. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. My primary interest in this bill, although all of it is very laudatory, is title IV, which incorporates the language of legislation I introduced earlier this year, the Ed Fountain Park Expansion Act. This language, which, as has been previously mentioned, has already been approved by the Senate and would transfer a vacant 8-acre parcel of land from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the city of Las Vegas for the expansion of the Ed Fountain Park. The city of Las Vegas intends to build a new community center on the site to complement the existing recreational elements of the park, which include lighted soccer fields, outdoor basketball courts, an artificial turf football field, a bicycle track, and picnic areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service has no further use for this property, which had previously housed the headquarters of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge at a time when this location was on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Due to the phenomenal growth we have experienced in southern Nevada, the site is very much now in the middle of town, and I cannot think of a better use for it than expanding a popular and valuable community resource. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Pallone from the Fisheries Subcommittee for their assistance in moving this issue forward. I urge all the Members to support the underlying bill, and again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary support.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this remarkably good piece of legislation, and I would like to thank both Mr. Brown and Mr. Michaud, in particular the chairman Mr. Buyer and our ranking member Mr. Filner, for bringing us to this point with this legislation. I had the great pleasure of hosting both Mr. Filner and Mr. Buyer in Las Vegas so they could see for themselves firsthand what the needs of my veterans were. The day that Mr. Buyer was touring our shared VA hospital facility, the hospital facility was on divert, and unfortunately every other hospital in the Las Vegas area was also on divert. It is a very common occurrence in the fastest growing community in the United States, and that is why this is such an important piece of legislation. I represent the Las Vegas area of the State of Nevada. It is the fastest growing community in the United States. But I also have the fastest growing veterans population in the United States, and no health care facilities in which to treat these 200,000-plus veterans that call southern Nevada home. After the CARES study, it was determined that Las Vegas was indeed entitled to an entire medical complex, and I am very happy to say that this piece of legislation authorizes a medical complex that is comprised of three buildings, an 80-bed VA hospital, full-service VA hospital, a full-service outpatient clinic to take care of the needs of our veterans, and a 120-bed long-term facility which is so desperately needed in the southern Nevada area. It will be located on 147 acres in north Las Vegas on the corner of the 215 and Pecos Road. This land has already been transferred to the VA, so we don't have to worry about the land. This land has already been blessed by the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe in a remarkable ceremony. We have already been allocated $259 million, and the VA Secretary in his testimony in front of our committee has stated on numerous occasions that the balance of the amount to finish this VA medical complex will be contained in the 2008 budget. I am absolutely delighted to be able to go back to the veterans in southern Nevada and let them know that my colleagues in the United States Congress recognized their needs and are answering the call and providing the needs for our veterans. I am looking forward to the groundbreaking that will be taking place in October. I am waiting for the VA Secretary to let us know when this groundbreaking will take place. We will do vertical construction at the beginning of next year, and hopefully this complex will be completed for our veterans in 2010.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Lantos and Mr. Royce for engaging in this colloquy with me. I fully appreciate the importance and significance of this historic piece of legislation. However, I rise today to discuss two amendments that were adopted by the committee. I am sure that you are all aware that for over 20 years Nevada has fought to keep nuclear waste out of Yucca Mountain. This is a most compelling issue for the people of the State of Nevada. I am very pleased that the committee agreed with my arguments that, before we enter into any agreement to support a proliferation of nuclear power, we should know where the nuclear waste is going to be stored. Nevada certainly doesn't want to store the nuclear waste that is generated in our own country, much less the nuclear waste that is generated in other countries, and that includes India. I am pleased that an amendment that I sponsored ensuring that spent fuel from India's civilian nuclear reactors cannot be transferred to the United States without congressional oversight, that was passed by the committee. Another amendment that requires the President to issue an annual report describing the disposal of nuclear waste from India's civilian nuclear program was also approved by the committee. I believe these are critical provisions that the final bill simply must contain. Both of these provisions passed without objection during the committee markup of this legislation. I would ask the chairman whether he can assure me that he will work to maintain these provisions in the final bill as the legislative process goes forward. I yield to the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the chairman. I yield to the ranking member of the committee.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel, not only for yielding but for being a leader on this issue and so many others. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2730, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act. We need only glance at today's headlines about conflict in the Middle East and soaring oil prices to know why this legislation is so important to the future of the United States and Israel, so important to the future of the entire world. This bill will provide the resources to enable top scientists, academic institutions, and entrepreneurs in the field of renewable energy to develop breakthrough technologies both in the United States and in Israel. These two allies, through this legislation, are making a major commitment to break our addiction to oil through the development of abundant, secure, clean, and renewable sources of energy. I believe the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act will be recognized in the coming years as a major step towards energy independence and it will serve as a model for international cooperation we so desperately need if the world is to move beyond our dangerous dependence on oil.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week House Republicans refused to override the President's veto of lifesaving stem cell research. Their action will hurt our Nation's effort to find cures to diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and cancer. The stem cell research bill could have directly benefited an estimated 100 million of our fellow Americans, those personally fighting these diseases and their family members who share their suffering and pain. The legislation would have expanded Federal funding for extremely promising embryonic stem cell research while at the same time imposing strict ethical standards. House Republicans refused to listen to our Nation's leading scientists, biomedical researchers, and health organizations who said this legislation can save lives. More importantly, they refused to listen to the pleas of their own constituents. Instead, they once again supported a President who has no interest in giving our researchers the tools they need to find cures to diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. They were pandering to a very narrow part of their base. Shame on them.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and a very special thank-you to my very good friend from California, Tom Lantos, for his leadership on this issue. I rest better at night knowing that he is our leader. And I am very proud of him and very delighted to be here today. I am not going to take all of the time, which is uncharacteristic for me. I just couldn't have a resolution of this magnitude on the floor of the House without coming here and lending support. Two minutes could never be enough for me to speak on this issue, and I am afraid even 2 hours might not be long enough for me to express my feelings and my views. I grew up in a family where the very existence of Israel changed our lives. I was born in my grandmother's apartment on the Lower East Side of New York, and grew up hearing stories of what their lives were like in Europe before they came to this country and how important Israel was to the survival of the Jewish people. And while the Jewish people were people of the diaspora and had managed to survive without a nation for 5,000 years, the very existence of Israel gave each of us a tremendous sense of confidence and well-being, knowing that we had a homeland of our own. I was not alive in the 1948 war, or the 1956, when Israel was attacked again by its Arab neighbors. 1967, I was more aware, and 1973, of course. What I find incomprehensible and something I simply cannot understand, that here we are, so many years after the creation of Israel, after the aftermath of the Holocaust and the very reasons that Israel was established, and we are still debating throughout the world whether Israel has a right to exist. I am so proud of my colleagues for introducing this resolution. I think it strikes the exact right note at the exact right time in our world's history. We cannot allow this to continue. Israel has a right to exist, have secure borders, and lead a life for its citizens. And I think the time has come for the world body, led by the United States of America, to step up to the plate and say enough is enough. And this resolution is a remarkably good start. I thank everybody for supporting it. I am very proud of the speeches that my colleagues have made, and I look forward to voting for this, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for the resolution. The current crisis in the Middle East was caused by an unnecessary, ill advised, and unprovoked attack on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah by terrorist organizations who have called for the elimination of Israel. There are victims of these terrorist attacks innocent Israeli soldiers and citizens and there are perpetrators of these terrorist attacks--Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no moral equivalency in this struggle. To those who incomprehensibly condemn Israel or who attempt to find some equivalency, let me state the obvious. Every sovereign nation has a right and responsibility to protect and defend its people. For those who think that Israel overreacted--If I was the mother of a 19-year-old soldier peacefully guarding my country's border and my son was kidnapped by a terrorist organization, I would expect my government to do everything in its power to bring my boy home. An Israeli mother should expect and get no less. If I was living on the border of my country and a terrorist group was continuously lobbing rockets into my town where I live, where my children play, I would demand that my country do whatever they had to to eliminate the threat--Israel should. There should be no mistake about who is behind this crisis, Iran and Syria. Iran's president pledged to wipe Israel off the map and he refers to Israel as an ``illegitimate nation.'' Syria's troops occupied southern Lebanon illegally until 2005. This is a strictly defensive action on the part of Israel. There is an internationally recognized border with Lebanon. Israel unilaterally completed its withdrawal from Lebanon over 6 years ago. For 6 years, the Lebanese government has done nothing to step-in and establish control over part of its country. They did nothing, and left a power vacuum, filled by Hezbollah, in the southern third of Lebanon. Hezbollah uses southern Lebanon to lob katusha rockets into Israel with the hope of killing someone, killing anyone. They are not there to build a nation, protecting a people, laying a foundation for a better Lebanon--they are there to kill Israelis. Israel did everything it could possibly do to avoid a conflict in Lebanon--asking time and again that the government of Lebanon take control and police their territory. Unfortunately, these requests went unanswered and the terrorism continued to grow. On its border with Gaza, Israel also faces unrelenting terrorist attacks. After years of waiting, and praying, and hoping for a peace partner, Israel chose to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It uprooted families who created beautiful settlements. These families built homes from nothing, farms from dirt. Three generations were removed, some focibly, from the only homes they had ever known. I know. I was there. I saw Israeli soldiers carrying Jewish settlers in their arms across the border out of Gaza. There were tears in the eyes of the settlers and there were tears in the eyes of the soldiers. One would have thought that the Palestinians would have used this opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they were capable of self- governance. Instead of building homes, schools, and infrastructure, they have used Gaza to launch thousands of Kassam Rockets at innocent Israelis. The international community must ensure that Hamas and Hezbollah are disarmed. The international community must ensure that Iran and Syria end their support for Hezbollah's and Hamas's terrorism. Hamas must renounce its charter that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel or be cut off from the rest of the world. Syria and Iran must be punished for their support of Hezbollah. The 3 Israeli soldiers must be returned--alive and unharmed. Congress must pass this resolution condemning the attacks on Israel-- they are indefensible and unacceptable--and supporting its unconditional right to defend itself, which every nation on this planet has the right to do.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa for yielding. I rise today to congratulate the people and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the 15th anniversary of the closure of the former Soviet nuclear test site within their borders. I am pleased to commend Kazakhstan on its tireless work for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and I call upon the administration and my colleagues here in Congress to assist Kazakhstan in assessing the environmental damage caused by Soviet testing. This is a very important and very personal issue to me. I represent southern Nevada, where the United States detonated over 900 nuclear bombs at the Nevada test site in the 1950s and 1960s. Nevadans and residents of surrounding States paid a very heavy price for this testing especially during the above-ground testing years. Environmental contamination and the devastating impact on the health of the people living in this area, living in the southwestern region of the United States of America, were unconscionable and unacceptable and can never be allowed to happen again. I remember as a kid growing up in Las Vegas, so many of my friends' mothers and fathers worked at the Nevada test site. They would be bussed into the test site during the week. They would be bussed home during the weekend. Little did any of us realize that they were being contaminated as they worked for our government in the attempt and in the thought that they were doing something good and important for national security. I recall, after being elected to Congress, going to a meeting of all the former Nevada test site workers, at least those that were still alive. There were 200 people in the room when I walked in. We asked that everybody in the room that had been a worker at the test site who had some form of cancer, if they would mind standing and acknowledging that fact. Every single person in that room, all 200 of them, stood up because they were all suffering from a form of cancer. Radioactive contamination from tests in both Nevada and in Kazakhstan indiscriminately spread across the globe, eventually causing world powers to recognize the terrible health risks, stop atmospheric testing, and finally end all testing. We must prevent a return to nuclear testing, and we must continue to redress the problems that have been caused by testing over the last 60 years and continue to cause environmental and health threats from the United States to the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan, to the South Pacific, Marshall Islands, and many other places that have been harmed by nuclear testing. Today is the 60th birthday of my friend and partner in opposing nuclear proliferation, His Excellency Kanat Saudabayev, the Ambassador to the United States from the Republic of Kazakhstan. I do not think it is appropriate to acknowledge the fact that he is in the gallery, but I will be joining him in the gallery to congratulate him on reaching this milestone when I conclude my remarks. It was my great pleasure in June to cochair, at his suggestion, a public symposium in Las Vegas on the Legacy and Lessons of Nuclear Testing in Kazakhstan and Nevada. Over 100 of my constituents joined me and the Ambassador for this remarkable event, and it was with a strong sense of commitment that I submitted into the Congressional Record the Ambassador's and my joint statement of opposition to nuclear proliferation and our ongoing commitment to working for a safer world. I salute the Ambassador, his President, and the people of Kazakhstan and look forward to working with them on eliminating the threat of nuclear testing and nuclear weapons proliferation and congratulate them for their very courageous actions. I wholeheartedly support H. Res. 905. I commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa, for drafting this timely and important resolution, and I strongly urge its passage.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, coming from you, who truly was a leader in this issue. I appreciate the recognition and do not deserve it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and ask for its immediate passage. Since its establishment in 1930, Magen David Adom, or MDA, has been denied membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross for refusing to replace its red Star of David emblem with one of the approved symbols. For nearly 60 years, the International Red Cross refused to admit MDA unless it adopted the red cross or the red crescent as its symbol. This past December, a third additional emblem, the red diamond, was finally established. It is about time. Since 1949, the Magen David Adom Society was the only national organization denied full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. It was denied full membership simply because it used a red star instead of a red cross or a red crescent. It should not have taken 60 years for an honest discussion of MDA membership in the Red Cross, free from religious intolerance or bigotry. During that time, the American Red Cross stood alone as the only member of the International Red Cross to protest the exclusion of the MDA. In those 60 years, in spite of the official slight, MDA has performed heroically, aiding those in need and providing humanitarian assistance. It has done this without regard for race or religion. It did this to help alleviate pain and suffering throughout the world, even among Israel's enemies. In April of this year, MDA was in Romania assisting the local population after the disastrous flooding of the Danube. After Hurricane Katrina, MDA collected donations, clothing and equipment in Israel to help meet the needs of the hundreds of thousands of homeless. Last month, the state party to the Geneva convention adopted the neutral red diamond symbol of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement finally accepted MDA as a full member. May I say it's about time. I join my colleagues in congratulating MDA on its admittance to the Red Cross. While this should have happened 60 years ago, we are glad that MDA has been given the recognition that it has always deserved.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. What would you call it when you are attempting to outlaw Internet gaming but create an exemption for horse race gambling online?

Ms. BERKLEY. May I make an inquiry?

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is certainly rampant here in the House today. Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, apparently wants it both ways. He wants to tell us that the Department of Justice is opposed to horse race gambling, but on the other hand the horse race industry is happy as a clam. Let me quote for you what they have said in their March 15, 2006, press release. It said they had secured language in the Leach bill to protect Internet and account wagering on horse racing. Also, NTRA worked with Congressman Goodlatte to ensure that H.R. 4411 also contained language that protects online and account pari-mutuel wagering. Obviously, nobody has told the horse racing industry that they are not exempt from this legislation. After the Judiciary Committee approved the Goodlatte bill in May, the Thoroughbred Times printed an article titled ``Gambling Bill Passes Committee With Racing Exemption Intact,'' which includes the sentence, ``The bill includes an exemption that would allow the United States horse racing industry to continue to conduct interstate account and Internet wagering.'' Now, I was raised in Las Vegas, Mr. Speaker, where gambling is legal. My children were born in Las Vegas; my parents live in Las Vegas. We are now three generations there. I take great exception to those colleagues of mine that malign the gaming industry and, thereby, the State of Nevada. Now, I know firsthand, coming from a family whose father was a waiter, and on a waiter's salary in Las Vegas because of a strong gaming economy made enough money to put food on the table, clothes on our back, a roof over our head, and two daughters through college and law school. That is not so bad on a waiter's salary, and it doesn't happen too many other places but the State of Nevada because of our strong gaming economy. I can assure you that neither my sister nor I nor any of our friends nor any of our children have had any bad consequences because of the gaming industry. So when I hear the gentleman from Virginia speak of a carefully crafted compromise, which this bill supposedly is, I think what he means is that he made a deal with the horse racing lobby to exempt them from this bill. And why is that? Because he knew they would fight it tooth and nail unless he gave them an exemption. And his comments to the contrary doesn't make it so. And when the gentleman from Nebraska stands up and speaks about protecting college students, I have been down this road with him before. When it comes to gambling online, there is nothing, nothing, let me repeat that as loudly as possible for everyone to hear, there is nothing in this legislation that is going to protect college kids on campus from gambling online. We are talking about off-shore gambling sites, Internet sites that are outside of the reach of our judicial system and our regulators. Parliamentary Inquiries

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have left?

Ms. BERKLEY. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot today about a carefully negotiated balance in this bill. I would like to know who was involved in this negotiation. I certainly wasn't. Was the horsing racing industry involved? Apparently, they were. Talk about a special interest. The lotteries? Jack Abramoff, perhaps? Because they are all getting exactly what they want with this piece of legislation. I would like to urge a little honesty on the floor today and urge my colleagues to support the Berkley-Conyers amendment. If you are serious about banning Internet gaming, well, then, let's ban it and let's not make a major exception that can drive a truck through this. I urge all my colleagues, before you vote on this, go online. Check out horse racing online and see the pages and pages of online betting that you can do when it comes to racing horses. There is no excuse and no reason for this exemption other than you couldn't cut a deal with the horse racing industry, so you exempted them. I urge everyone to vote for the Berkley amendment and against the Goodlatte bill.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. BERKLEY. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and my colleague from Florida, Mr. Wexler, in offering this amendment. Despite all the righteous indignation we are hearing about the supposed evils of Internet gaming, this bill specifically and brazenly exempts one giant gambling enterprise from its prohibition. This bill's advocates proclaim the immorality of online gaming and shout that it will destroy our society unless you are betting on horse races. Mr. Goodlatte asserts that his bill is neutral on the subject of interstate online pari-mutuel betting, but there is no getting around the fact that this bill very clearly and specifically states that online betting on horse racing is not prohibited. And if you don't believe me, Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the National Thoroughbred Racing Association has said about the bill. In March of this year, after Financial Services approved the Leach bill, the NTRA issued a press release saying, ``The National Thoroughbred Racing Association has secured language in the unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to protect Internet and account wagering on horse races.'' Later in the same release, ``The NTRA worked with Congressman Goodlatte to ensure that H.R. 4777 also contained language that protects online and account pari-mutuel wagering.'' That sounds pretty clear to me. But wait, Mr. Speaker, there is more. After the Judiciary Committee approved both the Goodlatte and Leach bills in May, the Thoroughbred Times published an article titled, ``Gambling Bill Passes Committee With Racing Exemption Intact.'' The article states that the bill includes an exemption that would allow the United States horse racing industry to continue to conduct interstate account and Internet wagering. And, finally, it includes a quote from the NTRA spokesman who said, ``Not only did the bill pass by a significant margin, but three separate amendments to either slip out or substantially limit our exception were all defeated.'' It sounds to me like they think they got an exception in this bill. The bill also includes another hypocritical exemption for intrastate lotteries that is highly ironic because, as has been stated here before, this exemption is exactly what the notorious felon, Jack Abramoff, wanted when he reportedly orchestrated the defeat of a similar bill several years ago because it had no exemption for lotteries. Mr. Abramoff, if he were here, would be laughing about this turn of events. I am sure his former clients are giddy. Our amendment would strike the horse racing and lottery exemptions from this bill. Members who say they dislike Internet gaming have the opportunity to prove it by supporting this amendment. If we do not adopt the amendment, then this entire debate is a farce, Mr. Speaker, because the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act before us does not completely prohibit Internet gaming. You want to outlaw Internet gaming? This body wants to outlaw Internet gaming? Well, let's do it. Let's test the mettle of our fellow colleagues. I have heard many speakers talk about the special interests involved in this bill. Well, it seems to me that the most special interest is the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association. They seem to have the most clout because they are the ones that got the exemption. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me. If you are serious about outlawing Internet gaming, then let's really do it, and let's not carve out an exemption because it suits your purposes and your special interests. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.