Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is equally important to the people in Wendover and West Wendover as we are improving their economy to also be discussing the very serious situation of a prescription medication benefit in Medicare.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, while it makes no sense that Wendover and West Wendover should be separated, it also makes no sense in this country not to provide a prescription medication benefit within Medicare.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the debate and I have to say that I was appalled when one of the speakers said that if we passed this resolution, Nevada will be able to continue its nuclear legacy. Nuclear legacy? Nevada does not have a nuclear legacy. Let me tell you what transpired in the 1950s in the State of Nevada when there were less than 100,000 people in the entire State. The Federal Government came to us and said that it was going to do above ground atomic testing of atomic bombs but that it would be perfectly safe and that you could watch it, bring your families there, work there safely. All you had to do was go home and take a shower. So thousands of people went to work at the Nevada test site. I must say I have friends that share with me the times that their parents took them up to the Nevada test site with a picnic lunch and they watched the atomic bombs going off in the Nevada atmosphere. Let me tell you what has happened to those Nevada test site workers, those brave souls who thought that they were doing their duty for their country, but safely, at the promises and assurances of the Federal Government. Those Nevada test site workers, if they are not dead, they are dying. Those people that observed those tests and watched as they ate their bologna sandwiches, they are dying, too. They are all dying of unexplained cancers. Those downwinders in Utah and in Nevada who happened to be caught living downwind of these atomic tests, they are all dead, too. It is very difficult for me, after having lived through those experiences, to believe the Federal Government now when they tell us that the transportation and storage of 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste in a hole in the Nevada desert is safe. It was not safe then and it is not safe now. In addition, we keep hearing about the $7 billion that has already been spent on site characterization. But if you spend 7 cents or $70 billion, it does not make that site any safer. We are talking about an area of our country that has seismic activity, volcanic activity. It has groundwater problems. If I could direct your attention to a Los Angeles Times article that appeared today, this is the headline: ``Nuclear Dump Site Will Leak, Scientists Say.'' The little message underneath the picture says, ``Despite the dry appearance of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump in the Nevada desert, there is water in its environment. Scientists say that that vulnerability will eventually allow radioactive material to leak. At issue is only how long.'' Then they point out paragraph after paragraph. The government officials point out, and I am quoting, two other nuclear sites that officials--these are government officials--once said would be leak-free for hundreds or thousands of years: In Pocatello, Idaho and the Hanford site in eastern Washington. Quote, both are leaking already, and radioactive material could make its way into groundwater in just 10 years. That is according to a report by the National Research Council. You are telling me this is sound science? This is what appeared today in the L.A. Times. It talks about Yucca Mountain. ``About 12.3 million gallons of water flow through the disposal area per year. Traces of chlorine 36, which is produced only by nuclear bombs, was recently discovered inside Yucca Mountain.'' That means that through the groundwater, radioactive material gets into the rocks and into the groundwater in as little as 40 years. And you are telling me there is sound science? I do not think so. I have also heard some of my colleagues say this is really not a Yucca Mountain vote, this is not a transportation vote, that this is not really a vote on shipping nuclear waste. Let me beg to differ. This is the only time we will have to vote on this issue. So do not tell me this is not a vote on the transportation of nuclear waste across our country. It is the vote. I have listened to this debate. There is no doubt, on both sides of the aisle, we have huge problems. We have a huge problem with nuclear waste. We have an energy source in this country, nuclear energy, that produces a dangerous by-product, nuclear waste. This Nation has never figured out what to do with it. Not any alternative that I have heard is good enough for the people that I represent and good enough for the people you represent, too. If we go ahead with this foolhardy plan, we will never, ever figure out what to do with nuclear waste, because once Yucca Mountain is filled up, we will still have the exact same problem. It is time that we take care of that problem and let us take care of it today. Mr. Speaker, I include the L.A. Times article for the Record.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for having done a stellar job over the last 20 years to protect the people, not only in my own home State, but in the entire United States of America. I have been profoundly involved with this issue for the last 20 years, ever since it was passed in 1982. This is a horrible piece of legislation. It is a horrible idea. Even if Yucca Mountain is passed, we still will not have solved a very serious problem in our Nation, and that is what we will do with the nuclear waste for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge us, before we spend billions of dollars more, to take this money, put it into research and development for renewable energy sources. Let us harness the sun, let us harness the wind, hydrocells, geothermal; and let us truly become energy independent, away from foreign oil sources and away from an energy source that produces a by-product that is so deadly that none of us, none of us want it in our backyard.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing the outrage felt throughout Nevada about this ill-advised proposal. Eighty-three percent of the people I represent vehemently oppose Yucca Mountain. Nevada does not use nuclear energy. Nevada does not produce one ounce of nuclear waste. Yet Nevada is being asked to carry the weight of a burden we have had no part in creating. I grew up in Las Vegas. Long before I came to serve in Congress, I have been fighting against this proposal to transport 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste across 43 States to be stored for 10,000 years in a hole in the Nevada desert. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act charged the Department of Energy with the task of studying multiple potential repository sites to determine which would be the best to provide geologic containment of nuclear waste. But in 1987, without the benefit of any completed scientific study, Congress passed the so-called ``Screw Nevada'' bill which made the most political of decisions. It singled out Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only site to be studied. There was no science, there was no reason, except that Nevada was a small State with a small congressional delegation. Almost immediately, it became apparent that Yucca Mountain could not contain the waste by natural geologic barriers as required by law, so the DOE simply changed the rules. The waste would be stored in man-made canisters for 10,000 years. Then it was discovered that those canisters would quickly corrode, so they added titanium drip shields. Even with all of these man-made barriers, there still had to be gerrymandering groundwater regulations to set up contamination zones. We have deviated so far from the original intent of the proposal. We have allowed the DOE and the EPA to set standards that endanger the environment and human health. Yet no one seems to be willing to pull the plug on this foolhardy idea. This Nation has a serious waste problem. Every year our reactors create 2,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste. The only method of disposal this country has ever seriously studied is shipping the waste across the country and dumping it 90 miles outside of my hometown of Las Vegas, the fastest growing city in the country. But there are major problems with this plan. A central repository would not mean, let me emphasize, not mean that reactor sites around the country would be cleaned out. That is a myth. According to the government's shipping plans, in the year 2036, when Yucca Mountain is filled to capacity, there would still be 44,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at the reactor sites. That means that after 38 years of shipping high level waste through our cities and our towns, we will have reduced on-site storage of nuclear waste by a mere 4 percent. Why would we want to risk shipping nuclear waste across 43 States for 38 years if it makes no difference in the amount of waste stored on-site throughout the country? There are also very serious scientific concerns with the proposed dump. Yucca Mountain is located in an earthquake and volcanic eruption zone. Studies have shown that groundwater can travel through fissures in the mountain in a very short time frame, dissolve the waste and contaminate groundwater supplies, releasing deadly toxins into the environment of the Southwest. Recently an independent investigation by the General Accounting Office found that there were 293 unresolved scientific questions that the government had failed to address, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board expressed limited confidence in the DOE's work, calling it ``weak to moderate.'' Would any of us get on an airplane if the FAA said it had only limited confidence in the pilot's ability to take off and land? Would any of us drive across a bridge if its structure was described as weak to moderate? Would any of us take medication if the FDA said there were still 293 unresolved questions about its safety? The answer is obvious. The answer is no. Yet with Yucca Mountain, that is exactly what we are going to do. The nerve of this administration to pretend that this decision is based on sound science. If Congress approves this project, as many as 108,000 shipments of nuclear waste will travel through 43 States en route to Yucca Mountain. The government's own statistical models show that we can expect between 50 and 300 accidents involving nuclear waste. People make mistakes. Accidents happen. But an accident involving nuclear waste would be catastrophic, exposing whole communities to radiation and destroying the environment for thousands of years. The cost of evacuation and remediation would be astronomic, not to mention the unspeakable cost of human suffering. An even more devastating scenario would be a terrorist attack. We already know that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are looking for the material to go in a dirty bomb. These waste transports are exactly the type of target rich environment they are looking for. In the wake of 9/11, we cannot afford to be naive and believe that we are safe from people who would give up their own lives to end ours. Yucca Mountain will do nothing to fix the nuclear waste problem in our country. It will greatly exacerbate our vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. With every truck, rail and barge shipment, our homeland security becomes more and more difficult to defend. The Yucca Mountain project will put us all at risk by transporting ``mobile Chernobyls'' through our communities, small towns and cities. If we cannot move the waste safely, then we should not be moving it at all. Many of my colleagues ask if there is an alternative. The PECO utility in Philadelphia has reached an agreement with the government in which the Department of Energy will take title to the waste, allowing the government to protect it in reinforced secure facilities without moving it around the country, and at the same time allowing the utility to lower its tax payments and its bottom line. In the long term, our country needs to invest its resources into emerging technologies seeking solutions to reduce volume, toxicity and half-life of nuclear waste. We also need to develop alternative renewable energy sources to relieve our dependence on foreign oil and nuclear power. Almost 50 years ago, the Department of Energy came to Nevada and asked us to bear the brunt of atomic testing. They assured Nevada test site workers and other citizens in my State that sound science demonstrated these tests were not harmful. Many of these workers are now dead, their families devastated, and this government can never clean up that legacy. Now the Department of Energy is coming to Nevada yet again and asking us to put trust in them like they did our parents and our grandparents. Well, this Congresswoman and mother of two is going to stand up to the Federal Government and say, no, I will not let my children become the cancerous legacy of the DOE's disingenuous promise of safety and sound science. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is a bad one. It is a bad one for our families. It is a bad one for our country.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the independent investigative arm of Congress, recently recommended that the Yucca Mountain project not be approved at this time. The GAO recommended that the government solve 293 outstanding scientific problems before the project be approved. After careful examination of these scientific problems, the GAO estimated that the Department of Energy would need at least 4 more years, until 2006, to resolve these problems. The report concluded, ``We question the prudence and practicality of making such a recommendation at this time given the express statutory time frames for a license application and the significant amount of work remaining to be done.'' In addition, there are still enormous and serious questions regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. The casks that will transport the waste have not yet even been created, and no cask has been tested full scale. In light of 9/11, several government agencies have begun a review of the safety and security of nuclear waste transport. The result of these reviews is not yet complete. It is clear that we are moving ahead on this resolution prematurely. It is not in the best interest of the public, and it does not reflect sound public policy. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act be tabled until 2006 when the scientific studies are completed.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act, be tabled.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for yielding me the time. I find it very ironic that this Congress is willing to put nuclear waste in a hole in the Nevada desert for 10,000 years, yet we are talking about a 5-year unfunded mandate. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's point of order. It is bad enough that we are set to vote on a resolution that will approve the Yucca Mountain project that has costs ranging from $56 billion to $308 billion. Nobody knows exactly how much this project will cost. This money is supposed to come from the nuclear waste fund, but the fund only has $17 billion in it. Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Are the proponents of this foolhardy project proposing to raise taxes, dip into the Social Security trust fund? This proposal only gets worse. If we approve Yucca Mountain, more than 108,000 shipments of deadly nuclear waste will be rolling across our Nation's highways and railroads, through 43 States for the next 38 years on its way to Yucca Mountain. As it passes through each of the 703 counties along the proposed transportation routes, local law enforcement and first responders must be prepared for the worst. And if the worst happens, where is the money going to come from to clean up the mess, the destruction, the devastation? I see no provision in the budget to cover these enormous costs. This is an unfunded mandate to our local governments. We know from the DOE's own assessment that we can expect anywhere from 50 to over 300 accidents. Our firefighters and first responders must be specially trained to deal with these nuclear waste shipments and the accidents that will occur. The nuclear waste fund does not have the money to pay for this, so the unknown costs are going to have to be made up by local government and the American taxpayers. We will be asking citizens who have no part in creating nuclear waste and have no benefits from nuclear energy to fund the nuclear industry so they can move dangerous nuclear waste through their own backyards. If we approve this resolution, the American taxpayer will once again be asked to foot the bill for nuclear energy. There is not enough money in the nuclear waste fund to cover the costs. So sometime in the next 10 years we will be either cutting corners when it comes to safety, raising taxes, or raiding Social Security. None of these alternatives are acceptable to me, and I doubt outside the nuclear industry and the nuclear industry's friends here in the United States Congress that these alternatives would not be acceptable to anyone else in our country. Yucca Mountain is a financial boondoggle that flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this point of order.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and as an advocate of a strong American-Israeli relationship. No country in the world is more familiar with what we Americans experienced on September 11 than is Israel. There are those who object to Israel's actions of self-defense. I ask those Members, what is America doing in Afghanistan? Are Israeli victims of terror in some way different from American victims? Do Americans have a right to self-defense and Israelis a right to die? The peace process is dead because the Palestinians killed it. It is time for Yasir Arafat and the so-called Palestinian leadership to express their desire for a Palestinian state living peacefully next to Israel rather than a Palestinian state in the place of Israel; and they need to say it in English and Arabic. The crisis in the Middle East has nothing to do with a Palestinian homeland. The Israelis have agreed to that long ago. It has everything to do with the survival of the State of Israel, which the Palestinians have yet to recognize. This resolution sends a clear message to the supporters of terrorism and the enemies of Israel that America will never be an ally to those who commit terror. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to support this resolution and stand, as this Member does, side by side with the people of the State of Israel.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, Congress will soon vote on whether to send nuclear waste to a scientifically unsound and leaky repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy has tried to hide how they plan to ship at least 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste through 45 States. There may be more than 108 shipments, not to mention as many as 3,000 shipments by barge. The real dirty secret that the DOE has tried desperately to ignore is the immense vulnerability of these transports. More than 123 million people live in the 703 counties along DOE's proposed highway routes and 106 million people live in counties along DOE's rail routes. Even routine radiation from the casks, given off while passing on the highway, would be a health risk for people living and working in the vicinity of the transportation routes. The threat of terrorism is more real for Americans more now than ever. At every stage of transport, nuclear waste would be vulnerable to a devastating terrorist attack that would result in massive civilian casualties and severe financial loss. The risks associated with transporting nuclear waste are clear. The question is, are we willing to play nuclear roulette with our Districts? Say no and oppose Yucca Mountain.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, in the near future, the House will vote on House Joint Resolution 87 to determine if we are going to ship deadly, high-level nuclear waste through America's cities and towns, through our neighborhoods, and past our schools, hospitals and houses of worship. If you vote for this resolution, that is what you will be doing, sending over 100,000 massive shipments of highly radioactive waste through the communities you represent, shipments that would be rolling on our roads and our rails every day for the next 30 years. A single accident would threaten the health of thousands, cost billions to clean up, and forever ruin property values. If you do not think this can happen and will, think again. Just follow the headlines of transportation disasters we see almost weekly. Someday, instead of gasoline or chemicals, the disasters will involve nuclear waste. Could you look at your constituents and their children and look them in the eye and tell them you voted for a resolution that allowed a massive catastrophe to ruin their lives? Vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 87 for the sake of your families, the sake of your constituents.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop pretending that the Palestinian Leadership desires, or is even capable of, achieving peace. Yasser Arafat and the current Palestinian Leadership are terrorists, just as surely as Mullah Omar and the Taliban, or Osama Bin-Laden and Al-Qaida. The United States cannot adopt a policy of negotiating with terrorists. Since the inception of this country we have embraced a foreign policy founded on the principles of fairness and right. We do not bow to expediency or terror. We stand for something greater. America's principled foreign policy is the foundation of our strength and credibility; it is, in large part, what makes this country great. To negotiate with terrorists would be to undermine this fundamental principle of our American strength. We cannot--we must not-- negotiate with terrorists. If we are to remain strong and fair, we must sever our ties with Arafat, with Fatah, and with the PLO. Some have been overly cautious not to call Yasser Arafat a terrorist. This is driven in large part by a cringing reluctance to recognize his obvious association with terrorist groups, and the current lack of any alternatives. But that very lack of leadership is the result of our reliance on Arafat and the Fatah terrorists. By removing America's diplomatic and financial support from these terrorist groups, the Palestinian people may finally be empowered to choose a leader--not the current leaders of war and martyrdom and self-aggrandizement--but a leader devoted to peace and the Palestinian self-interest. The United States must not shirk from calling terrorists what they really are, and it is a grave mistake for the United States to call upon Israel to end its mission against terror in the West Bank. America must allow Israel to take its place beside us in the war against terror. How can we as a nation justify ridding the world of the Taliban and Al-Qaida if we continue to criticize Israel for ridding the world of Jihad, Hamas, or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. And what more evidence do we need of Arafat's direct involvement in these tactics of terror than his own handwritten notes authorizing payments to terrorists and their families? Arafat still pays the terrorists, provides the weapons, and offers political cover for their activities. The current Israeli mission is intended to dismantle the growing terrorist network operating freely throughout Palestinian areas. Israel has already uncovered thousands of illegal weapons including Kassam missiles, car bombs, and explosive belts used for suicide missions. Cities of the West Bank, like Jenin, have become safe havens for terrorists, in the same way that murderers took refuge among the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are not the cities of peace in a nascent homeland. These are markets of death, waging a war against Israel, America, Jews and Christians, and all of the ideals of the free and civilized world. Arab leaders throughout the Middle East must publicly embrace peace as a concept and condemn the tactics of terror. It is unacceptable for the leaders of Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to refuse to speak out against suicide bombers. These countries must renounce terrorism unconditionally whenever and wherever it occurs. The Secretary of State should not be going to the Middle East to pressure the Israelis to end their anti-terror operations. He should be in the Middle East to say loud and clear that if you are an ally of terrorists and terrorism, you are not an ally of the United States of America, and you will never receive one penny of American foreign aid. It is time for the Arab world to know the United States is serious about rooting out terror--wherever it dwells. The Arab world must stop the hateful rhetoric against the people of Israel and the West; its leaders must make clear to the Palestinians that their terrorist actions only prolong and jeopardize their historic quest for a homeland, and sow the seeds of despair and hate that will take lifetimes to undo. The Arab world must know that America and Israel stand together, partners in the war against terror.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to publicly acknowledge one of the finest volunteer organizations in America. Founded by Henrietta Szold in 1912, Hadassah has been a shining example of the Jewish commandment, ``Tikkun Olam,'' healing the world. I am proud to be a longtime, and life member of a group that has been a strong advocate for American-Israeli relations, the Jewish religion and family, civil liberties, and women's health. Over the course of the past nine decades, Hadassah has demonstrated an unsurpassed compassion and zeal for improving the quality of life for Jews, and for all people, everywhere. Hadassah's best known project is the Hadassah Medical Organization. This world renowned medical complex provides unsurpassed medical care, world class research and professional training for the people of the Middle East. Set in the heart of Jerusalem in Mount Scopus, and in Ein Kerem, the Hadassah Medical Organization has long been a symbol of Jewish values. Built in one of the world's most troubled regions, Hadassah's hospital has consistently provided the highest quality of medical care to all people, regardless of race, religion, or national identity. Hadassah doctors have been the hidden heroes for fallen soldiers, the victims of countless terrorist attacks, and ordinary people, Arab and Jew alike, who seek medical care for their children. Hadassah is also the sponsor of the Young Judaea program, one of the most impressive Jewish youth organizations in the world. Young Judaca has played a critical role in the development of tens of thousands of American Jewish youth. Located throughout the United States, Young Judaea offers Jewish youngsters an opportunity to interact with other Jewish youth, and learn about their Jewish identity, Zionism, and commitment to their community. In addition to their successful summer camp program, Young Judaea provides outstanding programs for young Americans in Israel. Through Hadassah, Young Judaea has enriched the lives, and broadened the horizons of generations of Jewish youth. Hadassah's efforts improve the lives of all women, the Jewish community, and all Americans. Their Women's Health Department runs a nationwide ``Check It Out'' campaign to detect and raise awareness of breast cancer. Hadassah has also played a central role in encouraging women to participate in the political process. Members have lobbied tirelessly on issues including the rights of women, church-state separation, and foreign affairs. Hadassah's 300,000 members are voices heard on every issue, in every state. As a Jewish woman, Hadassah has been a major force in my life. Membership has prepared me well for public service. For nine decades, Hadassah women have been leaders in our communities, and the inspiration for our nation's Jewish youth. We have a great debt to pay to Henrietta Szold, and the hundreds of thousands of women who have helped make Hadassah the organization it is today. I congratulate my Hadassah sisters for a job well done, and done well.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I am going to join my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) in praising Assemblyman Joe Dini. This is an extraordinary man. We know him very, very well. I am very proud to stand here and speak on his behalf. Assemblyman Dini, as we have heard, was born in Yerington, Nevada, in 1929. He went through school in Yerington. He went to the University of Nevada in Reno. He is truly a homegrown and cherished possession of the State of Nevada. He has served his constituents in Yerington very well. He has served the people of the great State of Nevada very well. I, too, have a number of remembrances of Joe Dini, having also served in the Nevada State Legislature with him, but I would like to harken back to the time that I was a freshman. Mr. Dini had already been speaker of the Nevada State Assembly, and he was going to become speaker again. But during my first term as a young assemblywoman in Nevada in the early 1980s, he did not speak to me very much during the session. Every time I saw him, I was a bit in awe, and I used to step back, and I thought perhaps the less interaction we had, the better. He observed me and he watched me, and we kept our distance. He was certainly somebody that I would want to impress and want to do well for. I did not hear from him the entire session. Towards the very end of the session, the end of May, he came over to where I was sitting. He sat down, he looked at me and spoke to me for the first time, and he said, ``You did a good job. I am proud of you.'' Those words meant everything in the world to me. It was more affirmation that I could actually do the job that I had been elected to, and there was somebody from the State of Nevada that was such an icon and such a respected member not only of his community of Yerington, but of the entire State of Nevada that I felt that what I was doing had been appreciated, and it gave me inspiration to continue and do other things. I am sure that I am not an isolated incident, and I suspect there are literally thousands of young Nevadans that Joe Dini has significantly impacted on their lives and made a significant difference. So I am delighted to be here today. This is a much-deserved honor. The people of Yerington, the people of the great State of Nevada, are very grateful for this honor for our homegrown native son, Assemblyman Joe Dini.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for bringing this bill to the floor for a vote. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2561, the Living American Hero Appreciation Act. This legislation pays tribute to some of our Nation's bravest veterans, Medal of Honor recipients, by increasing their monthly special pension. H.R. 2561 will ensure fair and equal treatment in payment of pensions to all Medal of Honor recipients. These individuals served our country faithfully and engaged in extraordinary acts of courage and heroism. Many of them gave their lives in preservation of our ideals, our freedom, and our way of life. Each of their stories is unique. According to Department of Defense records, one Medal of Honor recipient fought alone in the face of enemy fire to prevent a surprise attack against the United States troops. Another Medal of Honor recipient put himself directly in the line of sniper fire while attempting to rescue a downed helicopter pilot and his crew. Today, there are 151 living Medal of Honor recipients, and they are all truly special individuals. They deserve our gratitude, and I am pleased that today this House is taking steps to ensure that they receive fair pension pay.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hyde-Lantos resolution. I would like to personally thank both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this measure to the floor and for their excellent leadership on our committee. Mr. Speaker, after the vile terrorist attacks perpetrated by Palestinian suicide bombers this weekend in Israel, many are claiming that this is the moment of truth for Yasar Arafat. The fact is, Chairman Arafat has had too many moments of truth, and he has failed them all. The patience of the United States has been abused time and again by the Palestinian leadership. It is far past time for Chairman Arafat to start producing results. He started this Intifada over a year ago after rejecting Prime Minister Barak's generous calls for peace and, since then, has chosen to ignore America's calls for negotiation in favor of blowing up discos and pedestrian malls. Mr. Arafat and the entire Palestinian leadership must listen very clearly to the message that we are sending: You have gained nothing by killing innocent teenagers, except the wrath of America, Israel and the civilized international community. Palestinian apologists have tried to link these terrorist attacks to Israeli policies. Let me say loud and clear that those who make this argument are the same, in many instances, who claim that the attacks on America on September 11 were motivated by America's foreign policy. Only the most despicable or deliberately blind human beings can rationalize the murder of innocent teenagers for a supposed political cause. Mr. Speaker, our patience with the Palestinian leadership has run its course. American policy is clear that our enemies are terrorists everywhere and all governments that support them. This resolution says once and for all to Chairman Arafat, what side are you on? Do you support terror, or will you immediately and permanently dismantle the terrorist organizations that act freely within your territory? Hamas and other terrorist organizations operate with a free hand because Arafat allows them to. If Arafat cannot control these terrorists, then why are we propping him up and pretending that he has the ability to negotiate with Israel for peace? If Chairman Arafat fails to act, then it is time to regard the Palestinian Authority as supporters of terror and deal with them as such. The choice, as it has always been, is Chairman Arafat's to make.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3391, to provide long-awaited Medicare regulatory relief to health care providers. I would like to particularly thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to make this piece of legislation a reality, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson); the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), especially for his very generous praise, I appreciate that; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their hard work on this legislation. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for his leadership on this issue. I became involved with this legislation when doctor after doctor in the Las Vegas area came to me with horror stories of how they had been treated by HCFA and how it had inhibited their ability to care for their patients. The cornerstone of health care in this country is the doctor-patient relationship, and many of us have fought consistently to maintain the integrity of this fundamental and very personal relationship. Over the years, excessive paperwork and overburdensome government regulation have interfered with that relationship. This legislation will help cut red tape and bureaucratic excesses so doctors can spend more time with their patients and less time on paperwork. Reform is important to the doctors, important to our seniors, and vital to the health of Medicare. While this bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) says, does not include everything I had hoped for, it is a very significant step in the right direction. I am proud that my name is associated with this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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 of this bill. We are well aware of the horrendous treatment that women have received in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule. The Taliban restrictions on women's participation in society have made it nearly impossible for women to exercise their basic human rights. Women have essentially been prevented from securing basic access to work, education and health care. These restrictions on women also prevented them from adequately providing and caring for their children. It will come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that, after 2 decades of conflict and 6 years of Taliban rule, Afghanistan has one of the highest infant and child mortality rates in the world. Only 5 percent of rural and one-third of urban Afghans have access to safe drinking water. Over one-third of Afghan children under 5 years of age suffer from malnutrition; 85,000 die annually. During the years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, women were not made to feel subservient. It is far more insidious than that. Women were made invisible. They became non-people. Any woman can endure this for herself, but not to be able to protect your children, to see them go without food and watch their small bodies shrivel up and die, to see them sick and suffering and not being able to provide medicine or medical attention to heal them and save them, to watch their young minds atrophy for lack of an education, this is too much for any woman to bear. Madam Speaker, this bill takes a significant first step to ensure that, as we move forward in helping the people of Afghanistan reclaim their lives and rebuild their society, that we give particular emphasis to the needs of women and children. I am sure that everyone who rejoiced at the sight of women lifting off their veils, men shaving their beards and children dancing to music in the streets of Kabul just 2 weeks ago will also understand the symbolic importance of this legislation. H.R. 1573 sends an important message to the women and children of Afghanistan, and I hope all of my colleagues will support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe, Madam Speaker, that one person can make a difference; and I believe that all of us serving in Congress, united, speaking with one voice, will make a significant difference to the people of Afghanistan. If we sit back and do nothing, knowing of the widespread pain and suffering of innocent women and children caught up in the madness of Taliban rule, then I fear we are almost as guilty as those who have perpetrated these crimes against humanity. Now is our time to speak out, now is our moment in history to make a difference, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2983. This legislation is nothing more than a giant government subsidy to keep the nuclear industry afloat. Opposition to Price-Anderson runs the political gamut. Environmental groups like Public Citizen oppose Price-Anderson because it hurts our environment. Rather than investing resources in renewable energy, this bill would further our reliance on nuclear energy, thus exacerbating our problems with nuclear waste. On the right, even the conservative Cato Institute states that if nuclear power is a better investment than gas or coal-fired power, then no amount of government help is necessary. If it is not, then no amount of government help will make it so. This legislation mandates that it is the American taxpayer who will pay the financial costs of cleaning up a nuclear accident. It has been estimated that a worst-case scenario accident could cost more than $300 billion to clean up. The total insurance coverage provided under this act is $9.4 billion. It is the American taxpayer who will make up the difference. Madam Speaker, both Liberals and Conservatives oppose Price-Anderson because it artificially supports an industry that is not trusted by the American public, and not supported by the American investor. Nuclear energy is dangerous, and it is this danger that prevents investors from being interested in nuclear power. Price-Anderson not only subsidizes the production of nuclear energy, it also subsidizes the production of nuclear waste. Although the nuclear industry has lobbied for years to dump its garbage at Yucca Mountain, located just outside my rapidly-growing hometown of Las Vegas, it is not a safe place to permanently store nuclear waste. The geology of Yucca Mountain is unsound. Nuclear waste risks contaminating the ground water throughout southern Nevada and California. Even if this administration is successful in its efforts to ram a nuclear dump down our throats, it will take more than 50 years before 77,000 tons of nuclear waste is moved from its current locations across the United States and relocated to Yucca Mountain. At the same time, Price-Anderson subsidies keep the nuclear industry afloat, creating more and more waste, so even as the waste is shipped, more waste is being created and stored at the reactors. Any central repository represents only a temporary solution. Waste will continue to be stored at taxpayer-subsidized reactors, posing both security and environmental hazards. I have heard representatives of the nuclear interests argue that the events of September 11 emphasize the need for a central repository. This is not just an erroneous statement, but the most blatant political misuse of those tragic events. A central repository would do nothing to diminish the threat at active reactor sites and would offer only one more attractive target. When we include each individual nuclear waste transport, there would be thousands more inviting targets for potential terrorist attacks. Madam Speaker, I oppose the reauthorization of Price-Anderson because it makes our country a more dangerous place to live. Nuclear energy cannot survive on its own, and I think it is nothing short of highway robbery that we ask the American taxpayer to subsidize a product that endangers their very health and safety. Nuclear energy creates Nuclear waste. There is no way of getting around that. Long term options for disposing of nuclear waste, such as transmutation, are emerging, but they have not yet been fully developed. I would urge my colleagues to support research into the decontamination, and safe disposal, of nuclear waste, so we can solve this problem, once and for all. But in the meantime, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this measure until the nation finds a safe, realistic, and economically feasible method of dealing with nuclear waste. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support research on decontamination and safe disposal. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this measure until the Nation finds a safe, realistic, and economically feasible method for dealing with nuclear waste.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for doing an extraordinary job. I strongly support this airline security compromise, and I would also like to thank all the conferees who worked diligently to reach a compromise before the Thanksgiving holiday. We have answered the pleas of all our constituents to pass an aviation security package that will make our skies safer. This package will restore public confidence in our aviation system. Well-trained, well-paid law enforcement officials will thoroughly screen baggage, sky marshals will be placed on flights, and cockpit doors will be fortified. The passage of this bill will directly impact on my district. The economy of Las Vegas depends on the travel and tourism industry and the 38 million visitors who come to Las Vegas each year. Nearly 46 percent of those that come to visit Las Vegas arrive by air. We have an obligation to ensure that all travelers are safe. Aviation security is national security. With the passage of this bill, we enhance our national security and protect all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the conference report.