Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I absolutely am flabbergasted by the righteous indignation being displayed on the other side of the aisle, and it shocks my conscience hearing what I am hearing. If the gentleman from Virginia is so intent on banning Internet gaming, well, then he should be supporting my amendment. Better yet, I should not have had to introduce an amendment. It should have been included in his original legislation. If we are serious about banning gaming, then we should ban all forms of gaming, and I can't possibly imagine why he would be opposed to that. When he says it is a poison pill, why, because the horse racing association told him they would fight this if he brought in legislation that had this included and didn't make an exemption out of it? I am absolutely astounded also by the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), whom I don't think would be offended if I said that he was opposed to gaming of any form. But I find it incomprehensible that in the year 2000 Congress approved a provision allowing online betting on horse racing, and during consideration of the bill on the floor, Mr. Wolf made a statement in which he said, ``This provision deeply troubles me, and would expand gambling at a time when men and women are becoming addicted to this process.'' Now he seems to be okay with the Leach-Goodlatte amendment which specifically exempts the activity made legal by this 2000 provision. Now, if we want to let the States retain control of this issue, we should not be voting on doing this bill at all. It makes no sense. I would say that we are interfering with the States' rights, not helping them out. And if you are arguing that the bill is neutral on horse racing, then why is it even mentioned in this bill? And why does the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association think they have an exemption? Is Mr. Goodlatte willing to stand up here and make a statement for the record that the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association and horse racing is exempt and the Department of Justice can go after them and shut them down? I don't think so. And if you had an opportunity to go online, as I did just yesterday, and looked at the horse racing Internet sites, it is page after page after page. Anybody can log on. Anybody can place a bet. And I don't see any way to prevent children, and I don't see any way of keeping people from spending their hard-earned money on that. This creates a huge exemption which we will have no control of, and totally, in my opinion, undermines the bill and makes a mockery and a farce of what we are doing here today, or supposed to be doing here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Conyers for his extraordinary efforts on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Despite the misinformed and misguided claims of this bill's supporters, it would neither prohibit Internet gaming nor increase enforcement capabilities of the United States Government. Instead, passing this bill will do the exact opposite. The millions of Americans who currently wager online will continue to use offshore Web sites out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement, and they will remain unprotected by State regulators who ensure the integrity of brick and mortar gaming establishments in this country. I continue to be astounded by the Members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive Federal Government; and yet when it comes to gaming, they are the first, the first to call for government intrusion. A man's home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home is the province of the Federal Government. This bill was recently included on the House Republicans' American Values Agenda. Which American values is this promoting? It certainly cannot be the right to privacy. It certainly cannot be the right of individuals to be free to make their own decisions about what type of recreation to enjoy. And, yes, my colleagues, gaming is considered a form of recreation for millions of our fellow citizens. Gaming is legal in this country in those States who choose to allow it and to regulate it. The vast majority of States do allow gaming and regulate it, whether it be lotteries, racing, card rooms, casinos, or bingo. This bill would make a legal activity illegal in those same States solely because it is done online rather than in a casino or in a church. In reality, the intent of this bill, and it is rather obvious, is to attack and outlaw legal gaming in our Nation. Supporters of this bill argue that online gaming is a great danger to society and our youth because some people gamble too much and some underage people might access online wagering sites. By that logic, the next piece of legislation we should be considering is banning online shopping. Surely those who overspend their budgets online and young people who borrow their mom's credit card must be stopped by the long arm of Federal law enforcement. Supporters of the bill before us today claim that their target is the offshore gambling operations that are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States, as Mr. Goodlatte said. Indeed, Internet gaming has grown from a $3 billion industry in 2001, and it is projected to reach $25 billion by the end of the decade. Americans account for as much as half of that amount. But there is nothing in this bill, let me repeat that, nothing in this bill that will shut down these offshore companies who operate legally in other countries. Like it or not, Americans who wish to wager online will find a way to do so. The very nature of a free World Wide Web will continue to make online gaming available across the globe, including the United States. Under this bill, billions of dollars will continue to flow out of our country, with millions of Americans wishing to wager online. It is ridiculous, ridiculous to think this bill will actually stop online gaming. Just like Prohibition failed, this prohibition on gaming in the comfort of your own living room will fail as well.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the symposium, Nuclear Weapons Testing in Nevada and Semipalatinsk: Shared Legacy, Shared Lessons, Ambassador Saudabayev and I expressed our concern over the continuous proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, and therefore, declare the following: During the cold war, in the second part of the 20th century, the lands of Nevada and Kazakhstan became sites for nuclear weapons testing by the United States and the Soviet Union, and many of our citizens became victims of the radioactive fallout and other contaminants that resulted from the testing. These people tragically came to know the destructive force of weapons of mass destruction. As a result of 928 nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, along with more tests at other U.S. proving grounds, and 456 nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, many thousands of innocent Americans and Kazakhs suffered. Many continue to this day to suffer the consequences of nuclear testing. In 1991, the people of Kazakhstan, under the leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, permanently shut down the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site and took the courageous decision to voluntarily renounce the world's fourth largest nuclear arsenal. Kazakhstan has so far remained the only country to make such a decisive and wise move which showed the way to a safer world. The United States, at the direction of both Democratic and Republican presidents, has maintained a moratorium on nuclear testing, has reduced its nuclear arsenal, and has aided in decommissioning nuclear weapons abroad. Unfortunately, the age of nuclear weapons development has not ended. To the contrary, the specter of nuclear weapons is spreading. Today, the aspirations of a number of countries, and of international terrorist organizations, to acquire nuclear weapons are becoming ever more threatening to the future of humankind. Against this background, we are grateful to Kazakhstan for its outstanding contribution to global security. Kazakhstan's leadership and its cooperation with the United States to advance the cause of nonproliferation should serve as an example for other countries. The victims of nuclear testing in Nevada and Semipalatinsk are eternal reminders to the nations of the world to reject developing nuclear weapons, the modern Sword of Damocles that has imperiled humanity for too long, and to join together to rid the world of the threat of nuclear holocaust. We are most pleased to report that today's Symposium in Las Vegas, Nevada is another step toward further empowering the people of the United States and Kazakhstan to lead all people away from the threat of nuclear weapons, and redress the consequences of earlier nuclear testing. We pledge to work together to strengthen international cooperation to achieve nonproliferation, as we recognize this is the only path we can take to make our planet safe for all nations to pursue a better future for their people.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Manny Cortez. I am profoundly heartbroken by the untimely loss of my dear friend who passed away last Sunday. I adored Manny Cortez and will be forever grateful for his help, his support, his love and his friendship. He was a wonderful human being and a true gentleman. Manny was more than just family man and a dedicated public servant. He was a visionary who helped shape southern Nevada as we know it today and who worked tirelessly to turn Las Vegas into the world's most famous travel destination. Manny earned worldwide respect as a leader for Nevada's tourism and hospitality industry. Under his leadership, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority became the gold standard against which all others in the business are judged. His lasting legacy will shape southern Nevada as it continues to grow in the 21st century. Whether as a public servant or as a private citizen, Manny was dedicated to making southern Nevada a better place to raise a family, run a business, or just to visit. Las Vegas would not be the city it is today without the hard work, vision and dedication of Manny Cortez. My deepest sympathies go out today to the Cortez family. I know I speak for countless others when I say our community has lost not only a remarkable man, but a true leader who left his unique mark on southern Nevada and its top industry. I am truly blessed to have been able to call Manny Cortez my friend. More than any of his truly remarkable accomplishments that Manny could claim over the course of his political and professional career, I know that his family meant more to him than all the accolades or money in the world. Come this November, I know he will be smiling, knowing that the same call to serve and the same desire to give back to the community that motivated him to seek and serve on the Clark County Commission was at the very heart of his daughter's campaign, Catherine's campaign for Attorney General of Nevada. Manny Cortez was born on April 29, 1939, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, the oldest of two children of Edward Cortez, a baker, and the former Mary Tapia. The Cortez family moved to Las Vegas in 1944. As a youngster, Manny attended St. Joseph's grade school and graduated from Las Vegas High. Manny Cortez attended Nevada Southern University, which later became my alma mater, UNLV, and received an honorary degree from Community College of Southern Nevada. Elected in 1976 to the Clark County Commission, he served four remarkable terms. During his tenure, he served as chairman of that body, as well as chairman of the Clark County Sanitation District and the Clark County Liquor and Gaming License board. Manny was also on the governing boards of the University Medical Center, Las Vegas Valley Water District and on the Fiscal Affairs Board of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Prior to his election as a county commissioner, Manny served as administrator of the State of Nevada Taxicab Authority. His background included employment with the Clark County District Attorney's office and the Clark County public defender's office. Manny began his service on the Las Vegas convention and Visitors Authority board of directors in 1983 and would go on to lead that agency at a time of the most rapid growth for southern Nevada, the Las Vegas strip and for our tourism industry. By 1991, Manny had earned the title of president of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the largest convention and visitors organization in the United States. That year, southern Nevada welcomed more than 21 million visitors. By the time of his retirement, that number had grown to 37 million visitors annually. Travel Agent Magazine named Manny the United States Person of the Year for 1999, calling him ``one of the most astute marketers in the tourism industry.'' During his tenure as president of the convention authority, the organization came to be regarded as the travel industry's leading destination marketing organization. Manny was a participant in the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, and in 2003, the United States Department of Commerce appointed him to the then-newly created U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board. His role on the board included representing Las Vegas and the United States travel and tourism industry. Manny, and perhaps this is the most important thing, he is survived by a wife, Joanna, who was his beloved helpmate and friend for 45 years; daughter Cynthia Cortez Musgrove; and Catherine Cortez Masto; a sister, Patricia Snider; and two grandchildren, Andrew and Christina, all of Las Vegas. There will never be a another Manny Cortez, but every time I return home to Las Vegas, his legacy will be on display for the entire world to see and admire. On a very, very personal note, there is not anybody that was more important to the travel and tourism industry in Las Vegas Nevada than Manny Cortez. He was a dear friend and a mentor to many, many of us who are now serving in public office and have made a contribution to Las Vegas. His untimely death was a surprise to all of us. We will mourn him, we miss him and we love him.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable to vote on Rollcall Numbers 251 through 262. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Numbers 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259 and 260, and ``no'' on Rollcall Numbers 255, 258, 261 and 262.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Congresswoman, Mrs. Capps. She is an extraordinary advocate for health care, not only for women, but for families, men, everyone in this country, to make it a healthier country to live in. And I am so grateful for her, for her friendship and for the remarkable mark she has made on this Congress and on this country. I rise in strong support of House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, May was National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month. Osteoporosis and low bone density affect 44 million Americans over the age of 50. It is a disease in which the bones become more fragile and prone to breaking. Many of those affected are unaware they have osteoporosis and therefore, they are unable to take steps to prevent it. Like many Americans, I had no idea I was at risk for developing osteoporosis. I thought I simply had bad posture. And it never occurred to me to be screened for osteoporosis. Yet, when I was running for Congress in 1998, I was diagnosed with this disease. Fortunately, within 10 months of the diagnosis, with proper treatment, I was able to stop my bone loss and my bones actually began to strengthen again. My bill will help raise awareness about the prevention and treatment of this increasingly common disease and encourage those at risk to have a quick and painless bone density test. While more Americans than ever before have been diagnosed with osteoporosis and are receiving treatment, much more remains to be done to raise awareness about the importance of healthy bones. Often called the silent disease because it goes undetected in many Americans until they actually break a bone, osteoporosis affects more than 10 million individuals and an estimated 34 million men and women. And yes, Mr. Speaker, men are susceptible to osteoporosis too. They suffer from osteoporosis and have low bone mass which places them at an increased risk for developing this condition. As of 2003, there were an estimated 3.6 million people who have been diagnosed with osteoporosis. In my home State of Nevada, over 300,000 men and women suffer from osteoporosis and low bone mass. One in two women, and one in four men age 50 and older will have an osteoporosis related fracture in their lifetime. The consequences of osteoporosis are devastating and very painful. Hip fractures, which occur about twice as often in women as men, are more serious than people realize. Approximately 20 percent of the hip fracture patients over the age of 70 will die in a year after that fracture, usually from complications such as pneumonia or blood clots in the lungs. Prevention, diagnosis and treatment are the keys to tackling osteoporosis and as a Nation, we must teach people of all ages how to take the necessary steps to keep their bones healthy and strong for a lifetime. Those at risk who have not yet been tested for osteoporosis need to make an appointment with their physician to have a bone density test. The exams are quick and they are painless and they can be done in conjunction with a regular checkup. Because of my personal experience with osteoporosis, I am committed to ensuring that my fellow Americans are aware of the importance of early detection and prevention. Men and women can reduce their chances of developing this disease. I encourage everyone to see their doctor and get screened for osteoporosis. It is very silent, but it is a deadly disease. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution that will increase awareness of this disease. I thank my colleague and dear friend, Mrs. Capps, for working with me to ensure that this resolution becomes a reality. Thank you very much.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my colleagues and the American people to the newest member of the Bush administration's energy policy team. His name is Yucca Mountain Johnny. He is the star of the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Youth Zone Web site devoted to brainwashing school children into believing that burying the Nation's nuclear garbage 90 miles from Los Vegas is safe. The Web site features helpful facts on nuclear waste, as well as games and activities to make high level nuclear waste fun. High level nuclear waste is not fun. It is dangerous, and the Department of Energy should not be using taxpayer money to politicize this issue or to use the DOE Web site designed to attract children as a propaganda tool. Yucca Mountain Johnny is full of advice for America's youth. Among his witty sayings, he says, ``The worst mistake is never making one.'' Well, Yucca Mountain is a mistake. This Web site is a mistake. Yucca Mountain Johnny, with all due respect, is a mistake, and to promote the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to our Nation's children under the guise of education is a big mistake. What is next, I ask my colleagues? Will the Department of Health and Human Services recruit Joe Camel to teach our children that smoking and tobacco is good for them? This is no less egregious. Whether you are pro-Yucca or anti-Yucca, I hope that we are all pro- children. As a parent, I am imploring my colleagues to let us not allow the DOE to use a cartoon character to persuade our children that nuclear waste is safe and good for you. It is not. This is wrong. This Web site is wrong. Yucca Mountain Johnny is very wrong. My amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from maintaining a Web site whose purpose is the indoctrination of our children by the nuclear industry, the Department of Energy and other proponents of Yucca Mountain. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I cannot imagine how anybody could think Yucca Mountain Johnny is good for our school children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on this Web site. It doesn't talk about the risks of transporting nuclear waste through 43 States. It doesn't talk about the potential of accidents or being an inviting target for terrorists. It doesn't talk about the fact that Yucca Mountain is in a volcanic and seismic zone area. It doesn't talk about the chronic mismanagement of the project by the DOE. It doesn't talk about what was contained in the e-mails that said they were ``making up the science,'' ``making up the stuff.'' It doesn't say anything about the existence of safer and cheaper alternatives. What it does do, some of the pithy sayings, and I can't imagine anybody doing a term paper on this one, ``Think safe, be safe.'' ``Change your attitude and you change the world.'' ``Any idea is worth having.'' ``The best sense for safety is common sense.'' Now, quite candidly, I don't know what the schools are like in your State, but in the State of Nevada, that is not term paper material. So this is just used for the sole purpose, and this cartoon character was created with taxpayer money, taxpayer money, to convince elementary school children that nuclear waste is a good thing. Why would we want to do this? Why would we use one penny of taxpayer money on Yucca Mountain Johnny? Have we nothing better to do with our resources in this Nation? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I said anything about fear. This is not about fear or creating fear. This is about using taxpayer dollars for a cartoon character when we have better things to do with our money. It doesn't matter to me if you are pro-Yucca or anti-Yucca, this is not a good expenditure of our taxpayers' dollars, and we shouldn't be using our children as propaganda tools. This is not Communist Russia. The last time I looked, this is the United States of America. If you will let me redesign this Web site, I might be a little bit more interested in Yucca Mountain Johnny. Right now, just his name is an offense to the people of the State of Nevada.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Well, I didn't write that language.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment. The project that he is targeting, the gas engine driven air conditioning heat pump development program, is a multi-year partnership between the Oak Ridge National Laboratories and private industry, including, but not exclusively, Southwest Gas in my State of Nevada, to develop a rooftop heating and cooling system for residential and small commercial buildings using natural gas. Mr. Flake is misinformed. The funding goes to the Oak Ridge National Research Laboratory, not to Southwest Gas. Rather than relying on electricity generated at a power plant to run heating and air conditioning, this technology would use natural gas to produce heating and air conditioning directly, saving precious energy and water, which is particularly important in the drought-stricken Southwest. This project, in its second year, is an example of what government, working with private industry to find new and more efficient ways to generate power, can do. I would remind the gentleman from Arizona that our Nation is in an energy crisis. We need to be funding more projects like this, not fewer. The gentleman is obviously sincere in his desire to reduce Federal spending. I wish to echo the comments of many of my colleagues who have said that they would prefer the Congress make these types of funding decisions rather than leaving it to the bureaucrats in Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. BERKLEY. If the gentleman would yield, it is the gentlewoman's understanding that the funds you are trying to remove from this very worthy project, which is in its second year, goes to Oak Ridge.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the courtesy he is extending me today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Yucca Mountain and to the $500 million in funding that this bill will waste on efforts to turn Nevada into a nuclear garbage dump. The families I represent in Las Vegas and north Las Vegas remain overwhelmingly opposed to Yucca Mountain. A recent survey found that 80 percent of southern Nevada residents are against high-level nuclear waste buried only a short drive from homes and businesses in by far the fasting-growing metropolitan area in the United States. They know that Yucca Mountain is a total failure and that transporting nuclear waste to Nevada is a disaster waiting to happen and an invitation to terrorists looking to build a radioactive dirty bomb. But that is not the only reason I stand before you today. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are being asked to approve nearly $550 million for Yucca Mountain at a time when the Secretary of Energy cannot even calculate the cost of the proposed dump. This past February, Secretary of Energy Bodman told the New York Times that his Department no longer, and I quote, ``No longer has an estimate of when it can open the nuclear waste repository that it wants to build at Yucca Mountain, and it may never have an accurate prediction of the cost.'' Let me read that last sentence again: The Department of Energy may never have an accurate prediction of Yucca Mountain's total cost. The Secretary testified in front of the committee that not only does he not have an accurate prediction of the cost but does not have any idea when Yucca Mountain may open. Yet here we are debating whether or not to spend $550 million on this boondoggle in the middle of the Nevada desert. It is an insult to the taxpayers of this Nation that we even consider spending another half a billion dollars on a proposal that threatens communities in 43 States, threatens our environment, threatens the health and safety of more than 2 million southern Nevada residents, and threatens to break this Nation's bank. I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle, how can you vote for more spending on Yucca Mountain when we do not even know how much it will cost, when it will open, or whether it will work? When it comes to reasons to oppose Yucca Mountain, what I have just said is only the tip of the iceberg. My colleagues, how can you vote to continue funding the Yucca Mountain project when there is overwhelming evidence of chronic mismanagement and blatant disregard for quality assurance requirements? Are you so beholden to the nuclear industry that you will not stand up for the health and safety of millions of our fellow citizens? In its most recent report, the GAO found that since the 1980s and up until this year there have been massive ongoing problems with quality assurance efforts at Yucca Mountain, including evidence that workers at the site deliberately falsified their own work. E-mails written by employees conducting experiments at Yucca Mountain described keeping two sets of books, Mr. Chairman, one with the real information, one for the regulators. Allow me to read these e-mails: ``This is as good as it is going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff.'' And another e-mail brags, ``I don't have a clue when these programs were installed so I made up the dates and names.'' While these workers are not being criminally prosecuted for their deceitful acts, and why, I don't know, what GAO found was a quality assurance program at Yucca Mountain riddled with failures that threatened to completely undermine the validity of scientific work done at the proposed site, and these findings are supposed to serve as a basis for licensing Yucca Mountain. Work performed at Yucca Mountain is so flawed that in some cases the DOE is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to have the science redone in the hopes of salvaging what remains of this project. So don't let anybody talk to me about sound science. This project is a slap in the face to any scientists worthy of that title. But we cannot stop there, Mr. Chairman. It is vital my colleagues also remember that the area surrounding Yucca Mountain has been rocked by earthquakes and violent volcanic activity. This is especially troubling considering that waste stored at Yucca Mountain will not even reach its peak danger levels for 300,000 years and will remain toxic for nearly 1 million years. Are we so arrogant to think that mankind actually has the ability to safeguard all of the nuclear waste ever generated in this country in one place for a period of approximately a quarter of a million years longer than modern humans have roamed the face of the earth? Let me also remind my colleagues of the groundwater beneath the Nevada desert. Are you willing to risk destroying the ecosystem of the southwestern United States to appease the nuclear industry? I am not. Is that what we want for the future of our communities? Is that what we want for families in Chicago and St. Louis and Denver and Salt Lake and others living along the waste transportation routes to Yucca Mountain, thousands of shipments of deadly radioactive waste over decades traveling along our roads and railways? There is a better solution, Mr. Chairman. Leave the waste at the plants where it is produced in secure dry-cask storage, where it can safely sit for the next 100 years. Mr. Chairman, in addition to funding for Yucca Mountain, this legislation also contains $120 million for the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which I also strongly oppose. This dubious project seeks to export nuclear technology to developing nations with the guarantee that the U.S. will take back whatever nuclear waste is produced. In other words, not only will the United States of America, State of Nevada, be the dumping ground for all of this Nation's nuclear waste, we are now supposed to be the dumping ground for the entire world's nuclear waste? Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the efforts of my colleagues to eliminate funding for GNEP, not only because it threatens to send more nuclear waste to the United States but because nuclear reprocessing creates materials that can be used to create a nuclear bomb. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to remind you that Nevadans are overwhelmingly opposed to seeing the Silver State turned into a nuclear garbage dump. The only safe solution is to keep the nuclear waste at the plants where it is produced in dry-cask storage. Funding for Yucca Mountain should be eliminated, and we ought to be paying the nuclear power plants for storing this waste. I am not an advocate of civil disobedience, but, as God is my witness, I will lie in front of any train that attempts to ship nuclear waste to Nevada. I will stand on the highway to stop any truck that is putting nuclear waste in Nevada. Nuclear waste will come to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, over my dead body, I promise you that; and I hope the people listening will contact their representatives and stand with the State of Nevada against this outrage. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I want to also express my gratitude to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, my very dear friend on the other side of the aisle, and of course my very special friend and mentor, Mr. Lantos. His eloquence was almost matched today by Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Engel. They did a remarkable job. And I do not believe I can equal theirs, but I would like to speak on behalf of this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and I am hoping for its immediate passage. Like some of my colleagues, I also want to express my sincerest sympathy to my colleague and good friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Cantor, for the unnecessary loss of his 16-year-old cousin, Daniel. I am heartsick about that, and did not know until this evening that he had died. This bill, Madam Speaker, is not about punishing the Palestinian people. This bill is about reasonable demands for United States assistance. There are three requirements on the Hamas-led PA to receive and to continue to receive financial aid from the United States. You must recognize Israel's right to exist. They must denounce and combat terrorism, and they must accept the roadmap and other past agreements. These are the three simple requirements that must be met in order to receive continued financial aid from the United States. The problem the Palestinians have, as I have said so many times before is not money, the problem has been and continues to be a complete failure of leadership. If one was tuning in tonight and listened to some of my colleagues, they would think that the United States has been rather stingy with the Palestinians. But I would like to enlighten those that do not know, that since the 1993 Oslo Accord, the United States has given more than $1.8 billion to the Palestinians. In that same time we have given over $130 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. After decades of aid and billions of dollars, it boggles my mind that there is no economic self-sufficiency and no improvement to the quality of life for the Palestinian people. Why is this? Because the desperation of the Palestinian people is not about money, it is about the Palestinian Authority failing to do what any responsible government would have done with several billion dollars, provide security for its people, build infrastructure, improve health care, provide economic opportunities, improve education and move their people into the 21st century. The money is not going to housing. Palestinians continue to live in wretched conditions in refugee camps with corrugated roofs in dilapidated ramshackle huts. The money is not going to schools. If it was, the Palestinian children would be sitting in classrooms being trained as the next generation of doctors and engineers who would lead their people in the 21st century. The money is not going to security. Rather than imposing security, the Palestinian Authority forces first attacked the Israelis, now they are attacking each other as Gaza is close to civil war. The Palestinian Authority under Fattah was corrupt and morally bankrupt. Is there any wonder that the Palestinian people turned to Hamas, the most dangerous terrorist organization operating today, to have their basic needs met? Year after year, we have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians despite no accountability, no modern financial controls, no transparency, and no actual knowledge of where our tax dollars are going, and the continued attacks on innocent Israeli women and children. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. However, it is substantially weaker than the one that I originally authored. In my opinion, we should be eliminating all aid to the Palestinian Authority, not granting the administration broad-based exemptions to continue to fund this regime. The legislation grants direct aid to Abu Mazen for nonsecurity expenses. It also grants direct aid for his personal security detail. Abu Mazen is a powerless and ineffective leader. Since being elected president, he has had every opportunity to create peace with the Israelis and establish a Palestinian State. When he had the power he would not or could not take the first step to disarm the terrorists and end the violence against Israel. Now he is the President of nothing. Why is the United States continuing to prop him up? Why are our tax dollars being used to support this guy in the first place? This bill also grants a broad-based exemption for indirect aid through the NGOs within the West Bank and the Gaza. Why should Americans be forced to foot the bill when the PA is unable to provide us an accounting for literally billions of dollars that we have spent? Madam Speaker, it is time for the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people to stop blaming Israel and the United States for their utter failure to provide for their own needs. Yassar Arafat stole millions of dollars from his own people. If Hamas needs money to provide basic services for the Palestinian people, let them hunt down Yassar Arafat's widow and get the millions of dollars that her husband stole from his own people. The problem is a lack of leadership, a lack of vision, a lack of hope for the future, lack of civilized behavior, not a lack of money. Until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel's right to exist, denouncing and combating terrorism and accepts the roadmap and other past agreements, not only should we not be giving one more dime, we should be asking for a refund from the Palestinian Authority.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, Republicans were dead wrong to force American seniors to pick a private drug plan by May 15. Choosing the right plan is not easy for any of us. Seniors had dozens of plans to choose from. In Nevada alone, we had 44 plans. But this decision was made even more difficult by an incompetent Bush administration that did not give seniors accurate information. The nonpartisan GAO conducted an investigation which concluded seniors were receiving bad information 60 percent of the time on critical questions concerning which drug plan cost the least based on a senior's prescription drug needs. One in five seniors are now actually paying more for their drugs than they did before they signed up. Seniors received bad information from the Bush administration, and based on this bad information, they made a very bad decision. House Democrats wanted to extend the deadline until the end of the year, giving seniors more time and preventing an unfair penalty tax from taking effect. House Republicans refused to join us in this effort, and now millions of seniors will unfortunately pay the price.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. I thank Mr. Crowley for yielding time, Madam Speaker, and I rise in strong support of the Iran Freedom Support Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation and ask for its immediate passage. It would be difficult to overstate the danger Iran represents. Unchecked Iranian nuclear proliferation, combined with increasing support for international terrorism, will help to further destabilize the entire region. Iran currently possesses ballistic missiles capable of striking 1,200 miles away. This places U.S. forces in this region, moderate Islamic Arab countries located in the region, as well as the State of Israel in grave danger. Imagine, if you will, if these missiles had nuclear delivery capability. For over two decades, the Iranian regime has been pursuing a covert and now overt nuclear program. It has manufactured centrifuges, sought completion of heavy-water reactors, and experimented with uranium enrichment. According to one weapons inspector, it has already converted 45 tons of uranium into gas, enough to build more than one nuclear bomb. In a perfect world, we should be able to rely on the United Nations to curb Iranian nuclear proliferation. In a perfect world, the eight reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding Iran's violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be enough to motivate action. In a perfect world, all of the members of the Security Council would appreciate the seriousness and catastrophe of a nuclear Iran. But since we cannot count on the international community, China and Russia are far too interested in Iranian oil and Iranian trade money, the United States must step up the pressure and do what is right. This bill, in my opinion, accomplishes that goal. U.S. sanctions would dramatically increase the pressure on the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear ambitions and allow international inspections of their facilities. Since the President of Iran was elected last summer, Iran's stock market has lost 40 percent of its value, there has been a capital flight of more than $200 billion, and Iran's manufacturing sector is increasingly dependent on imports. Iran is struggling financially. This legislation will further squeeze Iran and deny it the financial resources to continue its path towards nuclear armament. There is no debate, not anywhere, not in this body, that Iran is a radical and fundamentalist country headed by a President who is willing to share nuclear technology with the most unstable countries in the world, and by mullahs who raise religious fanaticism to a new art form. Every pronouncement this President makes further dramatizes how mentally unstable and unbalanced and dangerous he is. The United States must act quickly and decisively if we are to counter the continuing threat posed by the Iranian regime. We must deny Iran the technology and assistance and financial resources it needs to pursue this unacceptable behavior. I have no illusions. I can't guarantee that the sanctions contained in this bill will have the desired effect, but I do know that it is a far better alternative to invading Iran or bombing Iran. And unlike the Iraq Freedom Act, which many people have cited today as a reason not to pass this particular piece of legislation, there is nothing in this act that we are debating today, there is nothing in this legislation that can be construed as authorizing use of force against Iran, and none of the assistance should be used to support covert action that is contained in the legislation.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, later today, the Bush administration, with the aid and comfort of the Republican Congress, will once again propose to remove all congressional oversight of nuclear waste in this country to be stored at Yucca Mountain and double the amount of nuclear waste to be stored in the mountain. Let me remind everybody that Secretary Bodman, the Secretary of Energy, just testified last week that he has no idea how much Yucca Mountain is going to cost, and he has no idea how long it is going to take to ensure that they could build Yucca Mountain; but he wants to remove congressional oversight over the nuclear waste budget. Let me remind everyone, there are no radiation standards now. The court threw them out. There is no way to safely transport nuclear waste across our country. And after 9/11, it is incomprehensible to me that we have not come up with a threat assessment. There are no canisters that currently exist that will not corrode. We have a thousand e-mails from the scientists at the National Geologic Survey that demonstrate that they fudged or made up the scientific data that went into making the decision that Yucca Mountain was okay. Now they want to eliminate the oversight of Congress over the budget of Yucca Mountain. I think that would be a dereliction of our duty. We ought to stand up to the administration and do our job.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Saudi Arabia should end its economic boycott of Israel. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and my very good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, no one is born knowing how to hate. Hate needs to be taught. The Saudi Kingdom, our so-called partner in peace and ally in the fight against terrorism, has turned teaching hatred into a perverted science and a twisted art form. Last year the Bush administration supported Saudi Arabia's accession to the World Trade Organization. As a condition of joining the WTO, the Saudis agreed to end all boycotts of Israel. Their Foreign Minister repeated this pledge to our Secretary of State. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East. This boycott has hurt Israel's economy since its founding in 1948. The Israeli Chamber of Commerce estimates that Israeli exports are 10 percent less than they would be without the boycott; investment in Israel, 10 percent lower. It is no surprise to me that the Saudis have not honored their commitment to end the boycott. The reasons to me are painfully apparent: anti-Semitism and a hatred for Israel. Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the few nations to participate in the boycott when many of its neighbors have given up. In 1990, Egypt was the first nation to abandon the boycott. Jordan followed in 1995. The Palestinian Authority dropped the boycott in 1995 as well. In 1994, several of the gulf states abandoned their secondary and tertiary boycotts. In 2005, just last year, Bahrain announced it was completely withdrawing from the boycott. The Saudi government has repeatedly said that Saudi Arabia is not anti-Semitic. Oh, really, Mr. Speaker. These are the same Saudis that support terrorism, export terrorism, finance terrorism, the same Saudis that spew racist and anti-Semitic hatred, and the same Saudis that have the worst record on the planet when it comes to religious intolerance and discrimination. The Saudis say they share our values. Exactly what values do they think they share with the United States? They do not value a hate-free education for their children. Saudi schoolbooks paint an ugly, distorted portrait of a world in which Israel does not exist. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by so-called Zionist conspiracies, and the anti-Semitic and fictitious ``Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' is taught as actual history. These schoolbooks are the official publications of the education ministry. They do not value religious freedom and pluralism. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. Saudi Arabia's religious beliefs have even gone so far as banning the Barbie doll, calling them Jewish toys that are offensive to Islam. They couldn't value honesty because last year the Saudi Crown Prince told Saudi television that ``Zionists'' were behind the attack at the oil facility in Yanbu. The Crown Prince also is quoted as saying, ``Our country is targeted. You know who is behind all of this. It is Zionism.'' That is dishonest. That is a lie, Mr. Speaker. The United States Congress, by voting for this resolution, can take a strong stand against this type of religious and racial intolerance. Congress can take a strong stand on behalf of a fellow democracy and our most reliable ally in the Middle East. And Congress can take a strong stand to demand that the Saudis live up to their obligations and promises, the ones they made in order to get into the WTO with American support. I urge the Saudis to fulfill their international obligations and promises by ending the Israeli boycott. I urge immediate passage of this resolution.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, just when I think the Department of Energy couldn't become more incompetent or dangerous, they do something that proves me wrong. You will find this cartoon character on a taxpayer-funded Web site run by the Department of Energy. His job, Yucca Mountain Johnny, is to convince kids in Nevada that nuclear waste is okay and that the State of Nevada is a safe place to store nuclear waste. What really bothers me is the message that Yucca Mountain Johnny is giving to our school children. This is akin to Joe Camel telling our school kids that smoking is healthy. The Department of Energy ought to dump Yucca Johnny and his slanted, one-sided view of how our Nation should address the issue of nuclear waste disposal. We should stop using taxpayers' money to spread this message. It is despicable. The Las Vegas Sun wrote in an editorial on March 25, ``Children don't need a cartoon character to tell them what is easily understood by most people: nuclear waste is dangerous. Don't let anyone bury it in your backyard.'' Save the people of the State of Nevada, the school children, and get rid of Yucca Mountain Johnny. It is disgusting.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, I came to the floor of the House and stood in the well to tell the American people about a cartoon character by the name of Yucca Mountain Johnny that the Department of Energy has created which has been funded by the taxpayers of the United States of America. The purpose of creating this cartoon character is to help convince the children of the State of Nevada that storing radioactive toxic nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is okay for them. It is bad enough that the Department of Energy has been trying to convince the people of the State of Nevada and the United States of America that shipping 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste across 43 States to be buried in a hole in the middle of the Nevada desert where we have got groundwater problems, seismic activity, volcanic activity, is good for the health and well being of this Nation. It is not. And Yucca Mountain Johnny has got to be dumped before there is a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain. But the latest thing that has just occurred that I want to share with the American people, through you, Mr. Speaker, is it makes Yucca Mountain Johnny pale in comparison. Let me read to you what came over the wire today that I read: ``The U.S. military plans to detonate a 700-ton explosive charge that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas. `I don't want to sound glib,' says the head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, `but it is the first time in Nevada that you will see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons.' '' Well, it isn't glib to me, Mr. Speaker. It is a very serious thing when I have an administration official, the head of an agency, stating that he is going to detonate a 700-ton bomb that is going to send a mushroom cloud over the community that I represent, where my parents live, my children live, and 700,000 Nevadans live as well. So I called this gentleman, and I asked him to please explain this quote. Glib? He is going to send a mushroom cloud, detonate a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, Nevada. Well, he said, it was a poor choice of words, but that is what we are going to do. So I asked him, When is it going to take place? It is going to take place in June. I said, Is it really going to be a mushroom cloud over the State of Nevada. Isn't that a tad insensitive given the fact that we had nuclear experiments and weapons detonated at the Nevada test sites in the fifties and the sixties? He said, Well, it might have been a little insensitive, but that's what we are doing. So I said, Well, is it going to be over Las Vegas? Well, not really Las Vegas. I misspoke. It is going to be at the Nevada test site. I said, Well, will we be able to see it from Las Vegas? Yes, you're going to be able to see it from Las Vegas. Well, how big is it going to be? Well, we don't know yet how big it is going to be. I said, Well, where at the Nevada test site is it going to be detonated? He said, Well, we are doing studies, and it is going to be detonated in a place that is safe. I said, Well, how can it be safe when there were over 900 nuclear detonations in the fifties and sixties and that land is very toxic and very radioactive? He said, Well, we are going to do it in a place that isn't radioactive, although he couldn't tell me where, he couldn't tell me how. If I can continue reading this, he says: ``We also have,'' are you ready for this, this man doesn't realize how serious what he is proposing is, ``we also have,'' are you ready for this, ``a 700-ton explosively formed charge that we're going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada.'' So I said to him, Well, if it's in a tunnel, how come we are going to get a mushroom cloud? Oh, well, I wasn't quite right about that either. It's not really in a tunnel. It's going to be above ground. I said, Well, how can it be above ground at the Nevada test site and not disturb the dirt that is radioactive? He said, Well, we're taking care of that too. I said, What happens if there's wind? Is the wind going to be blowing this mushroom cloud to Las Vegas? Is it going to Utah? He couldn't tell me that either. This is a serious issue for the people of the State of Nevada. It's bad enough that we didn't get prior notice, and obviously the congressional delegation wasn't briefed; but the people of the State of Nevada haven't been briefed either. But if you look further at this press release that has been sent out, it says the Russians, the Russians have been notified of this test. So we have notified the Russians. We just neglected to notify the Americans? I think this is a bad idea. We need more information. And before you start detonating 700-ton explosive devices at Nevada test site, we'd better do a thorough study of the environmental impact. Because if you are going to be disturbing that dirt that is radioactive and having a mushroom cloud out of Las Vegas, the people of Las Vegas, the people of the State of Nevada better know about it, and we better stop this madness if that is what is going to happen. So I call upon this Defense Threat Reduction Agency to work with my office, work with the congressional delegation from Nevada, and let's figure out if we can maybe put this explosive detonation some place else where there aren't 1.6 million southern Nevadans and hundreds of thousands of tourists in the Las Vegas area at the time.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, if the Bush administration does not act within the next 2 months, seniors who sign up for the Medicare prescription drug plan will be severely penalized. In less than 60 days, seniors who have not yet signed up for the plan will face a Bush Medicare drug tax for the rest of their lives. The President has shown no interest in extending this arbitrary deadline. If the President won't act, Congress must. House Democrats did not support this debacle of a prescription drug plan, but we don't want to see seniors penalized because the Republicans voted to create a confusing plan that most seniors believe won't work. Seniors need more time to make the right decision. They are understandably confused. If the President won't act, House Republicans must join us in extending the deadline for seniors to sign up for the new drug plan. Democrats have introduced legislation that would give seniors 6 additional months to decide on the best plan for them. What is fair is fair. We simply cannot allow the Bush Medicare drug tax to take effect.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, a newspaper article headline states, ``Yucca In need of Repair After 9 Years.'' It says that Yucca Mountain research facilities, from ground support to railroad tracks, need repairs after just 9 years of use. Now this is the same Yucca Mountain that the Energy Department is proposing to put hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic radioactive nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Just this past week Energy Secretary Bodman said, ``There are problems with the U.S. Geological Survey work that was done,'' and we now know that the work was fudged and they made up the data. ``There are problems with the EPA standards,'' and we know they are short by 290,000 years. ``And there are problems with the efforts of the Department of Energy.'' What did the Department of Energy just say: They can no longer estimate how long it will take to ready Yucca Mountain to accept nuclear waste or how much it will cost. The latest estimate is $308 billion, and now the Energy Department says that might not be right. It is time that we stop this boondoggle, end this project and let us figure out a sane and sensible way of dealing with nuclear energy in this country.