Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 92nd National Day celebration of Taiwan. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a flourishing democracy of 23 million citizens who, like us, cherish their constitutional guarantees of freedom and human rights. Over the years, Taiwan has transformed itself from a one-party dictatorship to a vibrant multiparty democracy. Free and fair elections are held at all levels of government--elections in which nearly 70 percent of Taiwan's citizens participate. The Taiwanese enjoy many freedoms including the right of assembly, expression and association, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. Human rights are well-established and protected. Taiwan is committed to upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration and Action Program of the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights. Taiwan has the world's 12th largest economy and is the United States 8th largest trading partner. Its GDP of $386 billion is the 23rd largest in the world. However, perhaps more impressive is the fact that only 1 percent of its population live below the poverty line. Its thriving, market-based economy has enabled it to contribute generously to international aid efforts. In the first half of 2001, Taiwan provided nearly $700,000 through its International Cooperation and Development Program. The Republic of China-Central American Economic Development Fund has also enabled it to solidify cooperative relationships with Central American nations and reflects Taiwan's growing interest in that area. Last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised Taiwan, stating that it has become ``a resilient economy, a vibrant democracy and a generous contributor to the international community.'' He called it a ``success story'' for Asia and the world--words with which I heartily agree. It is particularly important at this time to recognize and to thank nations that have been our unswerving friends for many years. We must also acknowledge those democracies that have stood as our allies. I take great pleasure in congratulating Taiwan on its National Day celebration and look forward to a continuation of our mutually beneficial relationship.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1720. I would like to thank VA Committee Chairman Smith and Health Subcommittee Chairman Simmons for working closely with all of us on this side of the aisle on this important issue. I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for his steadfast support and hard work on this legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Smith and the entire staff for working with us to bring this measure before the House for consideration today. This bill contains authorizations for many worthwhile, major medical construction projects. Congress has put a virtual stop to appropriations for major medical construction projects over the last 4 years since the General Accounting Office released a report that suggested the VA was spending too much money maintaining buildings that were not being used to serve veterans. Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $121 million for major medical projects. That is about $6 million less than experts recommend for maintaining and enhancing capital assets. But while spending for major medical construction projects has declined, the number of veterans moving into States like my own, the State of Nevada, continues to explode, and the need for expanded facilities is not being met. Southern Nevada's veterans population is one of the fastest glowing in the Nation, and is getting larger every day. The VA predicts that the number of annual visits by veterans in the Las Vegas Valley to their primary health care clinic will rise from 200,000 to more than half a million by 2010, that is a mere 7 years from now, and the number of hospital beds needed to serve the veterans in my community will increase by over 50 percent. The VA is already struggling to address and meet the current demands of the VA health care structure in the Las Vegas Valley. Last year, 1,500 southern Nevada veterans were sent to neighboring States because they could not provide the needed services locally. This is an unfair burden on these veterans and their families. They should not have to travel hundreds much miles away for care. In addition, due to the decrepit conditions and structural deficiencies, the VA evacuated the Guy Clinic, only 5 years old, forcing veterans to rely on a string of temporary clinics scattered across the Las Vegas Valley. Imagine, if you will, what it is like for an 80-year-old veteran waiting in the desert heat, sometimes up to 110 degrees, to be shuttled from clinic to clinic to receive the health care he needs. For example, a veteran who needs a CT scan may have to shuttle from a temporary site which houses the CT scan technology to then another site to obtain a prescription for a controlled narcotic that he needs, and then to a third site for mental health services. Female veterans who need mammograms have to shuttle to different clinics just for that one particular service. As one 81-year-old World War II veteran described the situation, ``You are going from one place to another and it gets confusing. Don't our veterans deserve a permanent facility to meet all their health care needs?'' In short, southern Nevada is facing a veterans health care crisis. At the time H.R. 1720 was introduced and passed by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the VA recognized Las Vegas was in need of a new, multispecialty outpatient clinic. H.R. 1720 authorized $6.5 million for annual leases for that clinic. However, in the time since the legislation has been acted on by the committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs released the CARES document which proposed $4.6 billion worth of construction, reflecting only a portion of the growing backlog and veterans growing demand for services. The VA's average healthcare facility is about 52 years old, so updates are essential. The failure to make investments has put the VA way behind in addressing such urgent needs as seismic corrections, renovations to address patient safety, and privacy concerns and problems that threaten VA's accreditation by outside quality assurance agencies. To address the concern about underutilized buildings, the VA embarked upon a process to identify veterans needs for health care for the next 20 years. The CARES plan calls for the construction of a full-scale medical facility in Las Vegas, including a full-service patient care hospital, an outpatient clinic and a comprehensive long-term care nursing facility in Las Vegas. In light of the VA's new plan for a veterans health care facility, I ask the committee to continue to work with me to update the authorization level to reflect the demands in southern Nevada and to allocate funds for a full-service VA medical complex. America's veterans served our Nation, and now we must honor our commitment to those brave men and women. Providing high-quality health care is part of keeping our promise to these heroes and sends an important message to our troops now deployed at home and abroad in defense of our Nation. These future veterans, many of whom will soon call Nevada home, will also one day be eligible for VA care. Investing now will ensure that we will be able to serve the health care needs of our veterans, today and in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman the balance of our time so that all of his members can speak on behalf of this legislation. If I could take 30 seconds to sum up. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) in his remarks referred to me as the not-so-gentlelady from Nevada. I take great pride in that characterization. I do not think any of us should be gentle when it comes to issues that affect the health care of our veterans. We owe these veterans, men and women, a tremendous debt of gratitude. We are going to have far more veterans once our war against terrorism is over. I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for being steadfast on this piece of legislation. We should not rest. And none of us should be able to go back to our districts and look our veterans in the face if we do not deliver for them now. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for those poignant remarks, and I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and before I yield time back to the majority to close, I would like to thank the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for helping to move this legislation to the floor and helping to ensure its quick passage. I am pleased this was handled in a bipartisan manner, and I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their assistance. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) as well. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for House Resolution 409, repudiating the recent damaging rhetoric of the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir. Despite my steadfast and unequivocal support for this resolution, I rise today with a heavy heart. I am heavy-hearted not because I question the necessity of such a resolution, but because its necessity exists at all. I am heavy-hearted because in the year 2003 overt prejudice, racism and virulent anti-Semitism still exist. And I am heavy-hearted because I must take to the floor of the United States House of Representatives to condemn what should be an unfortunate relic of our past. To the contrary, anti-Semitism seems to grow stronger with every passing day. But I am not only heavy-hearted; I am outraged by this. Madam Speaker, there are problems to be solved, world-wide problems, and problems at home, homelessness, joblessness, poverty, famine, drought, flood, disasters. There are people that need our help and challenges we need to confront. But instead, today we take to the floor of the House not to confront these problems, but to confront a moral outrage and an affront to world civilization, overt racism and anti-Semitism on a massive scale. This past week, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mohamad, opened a 57- nation Summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference by characterizing Israel and Jews as the enemy who rule the world by proxy. He continued by calling worldwide Jewry an arrogant people who forget to think and will continue to spread oppression and domination. Prime Minister Mohamad has made what amounts to a call for a global war against the Jewish people and a holy war against the State of Israel. This is incendiary rhetoric of the worst kind. It is scapegoating, and it is racist, and it serves only as an incitement to violence and death and destruction. Not only are the comments of this nature dangerous and morally repugnant, they are beyond the pale of civilized dialogue. Nine decades ago, my grandparents walked across Europe to come to this great country. They sought a better life for their family and a better future for their children and their grandchildren. They came with nothing more than the clothes on their back, fleeing prejudice and hardship and oppression and, had they remained, almost certain death by the hands of the Nazis. It has been 90 years since my grandparents came to this great country. In those 90 years, we have won two world wars, conquered the evil of totalitarianism, and congratulated ourselves for a new era of globalism and plurality in which we celebrate our differences and embrace our diversity. Americans believed that the rest of the world have been celebrating with us. How wrong we have been. The senseless, mindless hatred and prejudice that my grandparents experienced in Europe still exists today. It exists in the burning of synagogues worldwide. It exists in the attacks on Holocaust memorials in Europe, and it exists in remarks made by a head of state at a conference, remarks that not one of the 57 nations in attendance, not one, raised a voice of protest over or left the room in disapproval or disgust. As world leaders and elected officials, we share a great responsibility. We are looked to for wisdom and guidance. In times of crisis, we are called upon to lead with fortitude and courage. In times of sadness, we are called to lead with strength and conviction, and in times of joy, we are called to lead with our hearts, but never, never are we called to lead with hatred. Words and actions by an elected leader have far-reaching consequences. They have the power to make policy, and they have the power to change hearts and minds. National leaders must set an example. Not only are the unconscionable statements of the Prime Minister damaging in their own right, and they are, they are damaging at this critical time as the Palestinians and the people of Israel struggle to form a lasting peace. By inflaming tensions between the Islamic and the Jewish world with hatred-filled bigotry, he has only helped to make an all-too-elusive peace more difficult to achieve. Once again, he has attempted to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State and demonize the Jewish people. I am pleased that we will be voting today to condemn the offensive and damaging rhetoric of the Prime Minister. His words and the thoughts behind them are inexcusable. I am also pleased that we will be condemning the violence of other world leaders, silence that in the past has been deadly to millions. I call upon my colleagues to join us in taking this strong stand against bigotry and intolerance, racism and anti-Semitism. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic whip and an original cosponsor of H. Res. 409.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on October 12, 2003, Nevada lost a friend and our nation lost a true patriot, when the Silver State's oldest veteran, William Daniel Brown passed away at 109 years old. Mr. Brown lived a long, rich life filled with many unique experiences. I had the pleasure to meet this wonderful, mild man and to watch as he was honored for his bravery on the battlefield in the First World War. A grandson of slaves, Willie was born in a log cabin on August 23, 1894 in Cuero, Texas. He grew up in rural America, ate only what he and his family planted and harvested, attended school in a one-room school house, and learned at a young age what it meant to work hard. In 1918, Mr. Brown, a man of peace, left Texas when President Wilson called on him to serve his country in World War I. Upon his arrival in France, he fought with other black soldiers under French units because the United States Army was still segregated. ``I was assigned to repair barbed wire. I'd fix it at night, and the Germans would shoot it up during the day and I'd go back at night and fix it again,'' he recalled. After the war, Willie, as his friends called him, returned to Cuero and made a living doing odd jobs around town. In 1935, he married Louise and they moved to California to start anew life together. In California, he worked in an old soldier's home for $5 a day, but found better work hauling freight for the Pacific Motor Trucking Co. until he retired. After the loss of his first wife, he married again in 1960 and enjoyed a happy life with his second wife Lucille, until her death in 1980. Although he never had children of his own, he was surrounded by the love and loyalty of his 30 nieces and nephews throughout his life. Thirty years ago, Willie moved to Las Vegas, where his niece, Jennie Jefferson, cared for him. Even after he had surpassed the century mark, Willie continued to be active in the Las Vegas community and attended the New Jerusalem Baptist Church. As Nevada's oldest veteran, he took pride riding in parades and participating in the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization. On the 80th anniversary of the armistice, Willie was overlooked by the French government when it awarded the Legion of Honor--its highest national award--to 900 American World War I veterans who fought on French soil. After I was made aware of this by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I worked with the French government to ensure that William Brown's service was recognized. On his 107th birthday in 2001, I was truly honored to stand with the Nellis Air Force Base Honor Guard and several Nevada veterans when the French Consul General named Mr. Brown the Chevalier of the National Order of the Legion of Honor. On the day before Mr. Brown was awarded the medal, I spoke with him and asked if there was anything that he wanted to do that he had not done already. He replied without hesitation that he wanted to meet President Clinton. Coincidentally, Bill Clinton was visiting Las Vegas on that day and I called the Las Vegas Sun Publisher, Brian Greenspun, who called President Clinton. Without hesitation, President Clinton invited William to his hotel so that he could personally thank him for his service to our country. The day before Mr. Brown's death, he received a U.S. Presidential Citation from President Bush for his longevity and his wartime service during World War I. Mr. Brown lived a long and fruitful life despite facing many challenges. He had said of prejudice, ``In my life I never cared about a person's nationality, the color of their skin or anything else because we are all God's people.'' He was a man of faith and lived his life one day at a time. He will be remembered as an extraordinary man who was treasured by his family, veterans, and the Las Vegas community.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Cyprus. After 80 years of British colonial rule, Cyprus became an independent Republic on October 1, 1960. Despite a history filled with disappointment and tragedy, the people of Cyprus remain committed to the core principles enshrined in their Constitution as well as the basic rights and freedoms for all people of Cyprus--Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Cypriots from all ethnic and religious communities. In recent years there have been significant advances in US-Cyprus relations and in relations between Cyprus and members of the European Union. Having signed the Accession Treaty to the European Union on April 16, 2003, Cyprus should be joining the EU in May of next year. However, EU laws and financial benefits will apply only to the southern Greek Cypriot part of the island, which is the internationally recognized state. Unfortunately, the celebration of this historic event, as well as the anniversary of the independence of Cyprus, is clouded by the fact that 37 percent of the Republic's territory continues to be illegally occupied by Turkish military forces in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. The government of Cyprus is to be commended for its continued efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the nearly thirty-year-old Turkish occupation. I'm proud that the United States has repeatedly supported international efforts, including dozens of United Nations' resolutions, to resolve this dispute. The international community clearly is in agreement that reunification underline any future settlement. A ``two- state'' solution that would make the division permanent would not only give credence to an illegal invasion and the forced displacement of over 200,000 Greek Cypriots, it would be inconsistent with Cyprus's history and constitution. I'm proud to state that I am a cosponsor of H. Res. 320. This legislation supports the removal of Turkish occupation troops from the Republic of Cyprus and expresses strong support for the European Parliament to do the same. Mr. Speaker, Cyprus is to be congratulated for its 43rd anniversary and for its relentless pursuit of peace. However, until reunification is complete, the people of Cyprus will be unable to truly celebrate their independence.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Inslee motion to instruct conferees. As everybody in this body knows, the State of Nevada has been unfairly and inappropriately singled out as the Nation's only high- level nuclear waste dump. I am strongly opposed to tens of thousands of tons of radioactive waste being stored in a repository in Yucca Mountain less than 90 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. I am also concerned about other DOE actions that could jeopardize the safety of millions of Americans throughout the country. The DOE is trying to arbitrarily redefine nuclear waste stored in tanks in Washington and South Carolina and Idaho, that have already been classified as high-level, as low-level waste to avoid dealing with the problems it faces in the cleanup and disposal of high-level nuclear waste. Some might claim that DOE's plan would stop more waste from going to Nevada. The truth is that Yucca Mountain is already projected to be full. As Nevadans know all too well, the DOE never lets the facts stand in the way of its decision making. The residents of Washington and South Carolina and Idaho are now finding out what the people of Nevada have known for years. The Department of Energy makes up the rules as it goes along. If it confronts an obstacle that it is unable to overcome, it simply changes the rules. Rather than working with the States and local residents and the EPA to find a solution based on sound science, DOE is trying to ramrod through Congress its decision to change the classification. The courts have told the DOE no. The States have told the DOE no. And now the DOE has turned to the Members of Congress in a last-ditch effort to get its way. Congress should not enable the DOE to reclassify this waste without regard to human health or the environment. I urge my colleagues to support the Inslee motion to instruct to send a message to the DOE that it must learn to live within the rules and within the law.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for organizing this special order. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that is very important to the veterans that I represent. In my district, Las Vegas, Nevada, I hear from veterans every day regarding the disabled veterans tax. Las Vegas has one of the fastest growing veterans populations in the country, and about 2,500 of these brave veterans lose military retirement benefits due to this unjust tax. Each of these individuals who was disabled due to service to our Nation loses thousands of dollars every year. That is thousands of dollars that can cover their health care costs, enable them to support their families, pay their rents, buy food and improve the quality of their lives. Under this unfair tax, disabled veterans who retire from the military lose $1 from their military retirement pay for every dollar they receive for a service-connected disability. When a retired Marine Corps major from Nevada was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, he lost more than $2,000 in monthly retirement pay because of the disabled veterans tax. To make up for that loss of income, his wife, instead of being able to cut back on her hours so that she could care for him, instead she had to work overtime just to make ends meet at home. But as unfair as this tax is to our disabled military retirees, what is more shocking, what is more unconscionable is the Republican leadership that will not let us vote on this legislation that would correct this long-standing inequity. There are over 300 cosponsors of H.R. 303 which would eliminate the disabled veterans tax. And more than 200 members of Congress have signed the discharge petition to force H.R. 303 onto the floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership says they support veterans and they say they support ending the disabled veterans tax, yet they refuse to do what is right for veterans and bring H.R. 303 to the floor for a vote. I invite my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up and take care of the folks back home. The Republican leadership must put this bill on the floor for a vote. We should honor the commitments that we made to those who fought and are currently fighting around the world for our great Nation. Support for our veterans is more than rousing rhetoric. It is more than a photo op. It is doing what is fair and moral to fulfill our duties and promises to them. We owe it to our veterans to keep our word, and Congress must take action to end this unfair tax on our veterans. We must take action now.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for Israel, as well as my frustration and anger over the continued Palestinian terrorist attacks on innocent men, women and children. I am especially angered over the action, or rather inaction, of the so- called Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. The Palestinians were given a unique and exceptional opportunity 3 years ago at Camp David when Israel offered nearly all the land in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, control of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem and billions of dollars guaranteed to build an infrastructure and a new Palestinian state in exchange for two simple things: peace and an end to terrorism. Arafat was in a unique historical position to finally bring peace. Instead, Arafat chose violence rather than compromises, terrorism rather than harmony. He chose to embrace cowardice and fear rather than to lead the Palestinians on the path to peace and statehood. The United States and Israel stand together in a worldwide struggle against terrorism. However, instead of standing decisively with our strongest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East, we continue to threaten our level of aid, subjecting Israel to a quid pro quo better befitting an adolescent child than a sovereign nation. I speak of Israel's need for a security fence in order to protect its citizens against continued terrorist attacks. Let us not deduct the cost of the fence from our loan guarantees.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, 9.3 million veterans are over 65. Sadly, 1,500 veterans pass away every day in the United States. The National Cemetery Expansion Act, provides more national cemeteries so that veterans' families can ensure their loved ones have a proper burial. I strongly support this legislation offered by Congressman Gerlach. In addition to providing more cemeteries, this Congress also needs to address the almost non-existent burial benefits provided by the VA. Burial benefits have seriously eroded due to inflation; leaving states and families to make up the cost. Paying for rising burial expenses is a growing concern to families and veterans cemeteries. I have introduced a bill to increase burial benefits for veterans buried in state and national cemeteries. This bill would provide veterans families with the same percentage of burial costs as promised in 1973. I encourage this Congress to support my colleague's bill to increase the number of National Veterans Cemeteries, and to reestablish burial benefits for the families of our national heroes.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to vote July 15, 2003 through July 18, 2003. If I was in attendance on July 15, 2003, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 360; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 361; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 362; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 363; ``nay''on rollcall No. 364; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 365; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 366; and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 367. If I was in attendance on July 16, 2003, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 368; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 369; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 370; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 371; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 372; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 373; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 374; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 375. If I was in attendance on July 17, 2003, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 376; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 377; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 378; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 379; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 380; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 381; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 382; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 383; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 384; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 385; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 386; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 387; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 388; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 389; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 390. If I was in attendance on July 18, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 391; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 392; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 393; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 394; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 395; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 396; and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 397.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, due to a family emergency, I am unable to be here today for the debate on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I want to express my strong opposition to the language in the bill regarding the Nuclear Waste Disposal Account. The House Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water has allocated a total of $765 million for FY 2004 for the Yucca Mountain Project and nuclear waste disposal. This represents an increase of 67 percent above current spending levels and $174 million more than the Energy Department's request for FY 2004. Appropriating such a massive increase in funds for a project that has yet to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is unconscionable. I would like to bring to your attention several outstanding issues that cloud the future of the problem-ridden Yucca Mountain Project. Key scientific issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain project remain unresolved. Sound science on the long-term viability of a deep geologic burial site for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste has yet to be produced. The Department of Energy continues to struggle to address the nearly 200 outstanding ``key technical issues'' concerning the repository. Numerous scientific reports highlight the potential shortcomings of the current plan, including a lack of comprehensive performance tests on the man-made storage casks, the presence of significant seismic activity at the proposed site, and incomplete data on the effects of the waste on the surrounding communities. Additionally, questions regarding the reliability of computer models in evaluating risks posed by long-term waste storage at the Yucca site remain unanswered. Some have stated that only the people in Nevada have a problem with Yucca Mountain. Proponents of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump site claim that it's needed to address security concerns at 131 nuclear reactor sites. But this simply is not the case. Even if the Department of Energy receives a license to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, operating nuclear reactors will always have nuclear waste on- site. As long as a nuclear power plant is in operation, it will produce hot, radioactive, spent nuclear fuel. The fuel must be cooled on-site for 5 to 10 years before it can be moved. Therefore, even as older fuel is shipped to a repository, huge amounts of nuclear waste will remain at those 131 sites. Shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain will not make these reactors any safer. On the contrary, it will create another potential terrorist target in Nevada. In addition, it will also create thousands of mobile targets traveling through 43 States and as many as 360 congressional districts for more than 30 years. However, if approved, 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste would be transported from 131 sites across the United States through 43 states, and perhaps as many as 360 Congressional districts, for the next 30 to 40 years, equaling a total of over 100,000 shipments of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste shipments will pass within miles of our homes, schools, and hospitals. In fact, one-in-seven Americans, 38 million people, live within one mile of a proposed transportation route. At every stage of transportation, from rail and truck transfers to storage depots, to the actual repository, a devastating terrorist attack could result in massive civilian casualties, severe economic disruption, and long-lasting environmental contamination. Finally, I would like to address the language in the report that addresses ``early acceptance'' of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Sound science has not proven that Yucca Mountain is a safe repository for nuclear waste storage. There have been promises made to Nevadans that no waste would be shipped before it was proven to be safe. I would urge the Department of Energy to ensure this is the case before there is any discussion of early acceptance.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, today I urge my colleagues to vote for the Udall-Porter amendment. This amendment would strengthen the Department of Energy's renewable energy research programs, and would work toward decreasing our Nation's dependence of foreign sources for energy. Renewable energy is vital to America's future. By boosting renewable energy, we are working toward bringing down energy costs, creating a consistent and reliable source of energy, improving other environment and public health, increasing our role in the global renewable energy market, and reducing our vulnerability to terrorism. Nuclear power, by contrast, has left us buried under thousands of tons of radioactive waste. The proposed Yucca Mountain repository, hundreds and thousands of miles from reactor sites, has been marked to house this waste, but transporting and storing nuclear waste creates potential targets for terrorism, leaving our Nation at risk. We need to invest more funds to help our Nation's renewable power industry grow. This proposal would overcome many of the financial hurdles encountered with renewable energy research. Geothermal energy, a highly accessible form of renewable energy, has shown little growth in the U.S. during the past decade compared to other nations. With more funding, this could change--we could create a boom in the geothermal energy industry. With the help of financing, just last year the solar power business grew by 60 percent to $500 million. Wind plants in 27 States produced enough energy to serve more than 1.3 million households. The State of Nevada has been cited as a ``highly favorable'' State to develop renewable energy. It is blessed with natural energy resources. The numerous mountain ranges, bordered by underground faults, are sources for geothermal energy. The Department of the Interior has listed 10 sites in Nevada that could produce geothermal energy in the next 2 years. Each of these sites is located near transportation lines, which could transmit energy to other markets. Geothermal power provides the Nation with about 17 percent of the renewable energy, but is less than 0.75 percent of the Nation's total energy supply. Solar energy generated from the sunlight of Southern Nevada, on a 100-square-mile grid alone, could supply enough electricity to power the rest of the United States. Wind power has the potential to produce twice as much electricity as nuclear energy. Currently, not even counting solar power, Nevada could produce 27 percent more from renewable resources. This energy could be exported to other States, creating more jobs and economic benefit to Nevada. Instead of investing funds into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Program, we should be endowing the Renewable Energy Program with funding to expand research and development. Money should be invested in cleaner forms of energy, not problem-ridden projects like Yucca Mountain that create potential risks to our communities. We must look ahead into the future of energy. Renewable energy is beneficial for people and the environment. With this I ask you to vote for the Udall-Porter amendment.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to vote on Monday, June 14, 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 354. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 355. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 356. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 357. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 358. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 359.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for putting this before our body. I grew up hearing about anti-Semitism from my grandparents and my parents, things that I could not believe could have ever happened; but the anti-Semitism acts that they spoke of seemed like historic oddities to me, something from a distant time and a distant place. I never dreamed, never dreamed that anti-Semitism could ever rear its ugly head again during my lifetime or the lifetime of my children. Especially after World War II, I thought Europe and the rest of the world had learned a very important and valuable lesson. I ran for Congress so that I could speak out against issues that I thought were horrific; and anti-Semitism, and its continued existence on this planet, is certainly something that I wish to speak out against. I am glad that we are condemning anti-Semitism in no uncertain terms and putting the United States Congress on record and speaking out forcefully against this horrible scourge and plague.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very important resolution, and I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Republican prescription drug plan. I represent the fastest growing Congressional District in the United States. I represent the fastest growing senior citizen population in the United States. When I came to Congress, I thought I would modernize Medicare, improve Medicare, strengthen Medicare. I never dreamed that I would participate in the destruction of Medicare. This legislation before us this week destroys the Medicare system. I oppose this plan. It does not offer a guaranteed prescription drug benefit for seniors. It ends traditional Medicare that seniors in my district and throughout the United States rely on. Under this Republican proposal, there is no guarantee that private insurance companies will offer prescription drug coverage. While Republicans estimate that the cost of the premium would be $35, the fact is we do not know how much the premium is going to be. Private insurance companies can devise their own plan and raise premiums whenever they want to meet their bottom line rather than meet the needs of our senior citizens. The Republican plan does not guarantee that seniors will receive any help with rising drug costs. The plan creates a donut hole in the coverage. Seniors who have more than $2,000 in prescription drug expenses are responsible for all of their drug costs until they reach $5,000 in medical costs. And they still have to pay the premium. Forty-seven percent of seniors in the United States fall into this gap. The plan does not guarantee that private insurance companies will remain in the market for more than 12 months. Seniors could be forced to change insurance plans with different doctor panels every year. Seniors know and trust their doctors. Many seniors have received care from the same doctors for years. Placing this burden on our seniors is unconscionable. The Republican plan does not modernize Medicare. It does not improve Medicare. It does not strengthen Medicare. It dismantles benefits and puts seniors into HMOs and PPOs. In 2010, Medicare will compete with private health care plans. This will result in higher premiums for hospitals and physician benefits. Seniors, particularly women, will bear the burden of these increased costs. Instead of dismantling traditional Medicare, we should strengthen the program to provide the best care for our seniors. We should be adding a prescription Medicaid benefit to Medicare, and I also support adding a provision to increase Medicare provider reimbursements. Thousands of doctors are leaving Medicare because Medicare reimbursements do not cover nearly enough of the patient's health care costs, leaving the doctors to make up the remainder of the costs. Increasing reimbursements allows physicians to continue treating Medicare patients while confronting rising health care costs. It makes absolutely no sense to me that we have a Medicare system that allows people to see the doctor of their choice, and when the doctor provides a prescription medication, a senior cannot afford that press medication. How outrageous is that in our Nation? I also support provisions to simplify the Medicare paperwork process. Today, doctors are spending far too much time filling out forms; not enough time treating their patients. Many doctors say if we could cut through this red tape, they could devote more time to caring for their patients. And what is best for the patient is why we are here tonight. Las Vegas has one of the fastest growing populations of seniors in the Nation. I owe it to the seniors in my district to support a meaningful prescription drug benefit; a benefit that is available to all seniors who need it, a benefit that does not have significant coverage gaps, and a benefit that allows seniors, and not insurance companies, to choose their doctors and not force seniors to leave the Medicare system that they know and they trust in order to receive desperately-needed prescription medication. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in opposing the Republican plan, supporting the Democratic plan that is easier, fairer, and that our seniors approve and agree with.