Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

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

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, the intense debate today makes it clear that the House should not act on this flawed legislation, but should further consider it in committee. A great many amendments have been drafted by Members of the House who agree that S. 1287 is a dangerous and irresponsible approach to dealing with our greatest environmental challenge, nuclear waste. But we are operating under a closed rule, and no amendments were considered. In view of this rule, our only reasonable option is to commit this bill to the Committee on Commerce so that all issues may be fully addressed. Here are some of the issues that must be addressed before any legislation can be passed by this body: Improving the testing of nuclear shipping containers, which are the only, only, line of defense against nuclear contamination on shipping routes in 43 States. Shipping routes that pass through cities and towns with a combined population of over 50 million people. Requiring consultation with State and local governments on public safety issues prior to shipping. Beefing up our emergency response capabilities to deal with radiation releases caused by shipping accidents, including funding for emergency response teams. With well over 100,000 rail and highway shipments looming, the Department of Energy safety experts tell us accidents will happen, it is a mathematical certainty; yet S. 1287 fails to address this awful reality. Prohibiting transportation in school zones. Protecting EPA's authority to set radiation standards. Requiring private carriers of nuclear waste to follow selected routes, determined in advance. Protecting the American taxpayer from the escalating costs of nuclear waste. Requiring advance notification to safety agencies and communities of all nuclear waste shipments going through their States and cities and towns. Assuring compliance with State and local laws regarding transportation and storage of radioactive materials. Prohibiting storage of nuclear wastes in areas known to be plagued by natural disasters. Preventing negligence or misconduct by contractors who would handle and ship nuclear wastes. Madam Speaker, this list of amendments is by no means complete. Many more have been suggested, and all of them should be considered. I know of at least 24 amendments that Members would submit under an open rule. Clearly our discussion today of S. 1287 is incomplete, as these amendments cannot be debated under the closed rule. The wise course of action is to commit, and I call for your support for this motion to commit S. 1287 to the Committee on Commerce for further review and study. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member from Michigan for his outstanding leadership in this issue. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. I am, Madam Speaker, in its present form.

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to go on record and state that I am adamantly opposed to S. 1287 and its intent to ship over 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across 43 States to be stored at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As a Member from Nevada whose district is frighteningly close to Yucca Mountain, and whose 1.2 million constituents live less than 90 miles from Yucca Mountain, it is outrageous to me that the Republican leadership would even consider a closed rule and not allow me or my colleagues to offer my common sense amendments. I represent southern Nevada. This legislation will ship over 77,000 tons of deadly nuclear waste to be permanently stored in Nevada. It will destroy the economy of the State of Nevada and the health of the people living in Nevada. My amendments are for the express purpose of protecting the health and safety of the people of my district and all the people that live along the transportation routes that the 77,000 tons of lethal waste are to be transported on. My first amendment would have prevented the transportation of radioactive waste if it would preempt any State health and safety laws or transportation regulations. And may I remind my colleagues that this House has long prided itself on the ability to recognize and respect States' rights. This issue certainly is just as much a State issue as a Federal issue. My second amendment would have prevented the establishment of a nuclear storage facility if, after sound scientific geologic testing, the facility site was found to be in an active seismic zone, within 10 miles of a potential volcanic eruption, or found to be threatened by migration of groundwater. All of these things have been found scientifically to exist at Yucca Mountain. My third amendment would have prohibited the transportation of nuclear waste by highway or rail if the route was within five miles of any hospital, school, or college. It is unconscionable that we would risk the safety of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, our elderly, and those confined in a hospital and subject them to the possibility of lethal contamination by nuclear waste. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this unfair, unjust, and unreasonable rule.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1983, President Reagan signed into law the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The new law began with a reasonable scientific approach. The country would search all over the Nation looking for geological formations which were capable of burying high- level nuclear waste. The new law would also consider three sites so as to provide some regional equity to the burden of storing the waste. One site would be in the northeastern part of the country, one site would be in the southeastern United States, and one site would be in the West. These three sites would be studied and then presented to the President of the United States for a decision. Since then, politics has had more to say to the siting of high-level nuclear waste than the science. After Members of Congress from the Northeast began to openly oppose placing the dump in the Northeast, the Department of Energy unilaterally decided to take them off the list. When placing the dump in the southeastern part of the country came up as a campaign issue in 1984, President Reagan unilaterally decided to take the southeastern part of the country off the list. These decisions were not based on science, Mr. Speaker. They were based on politics. Then in 1987, the so-called ``screw Nevada'' bill was passed into law. This bill made the most political of decisions, to designate one site, Yucca Mountain, as the only site, excluding any other consideration from any other region in the country. So if I begin to question the claims of science from the supporters of dumping nuclear waste in Nevada, it is because I have learned to question from the history of this issue. Fast forward to the mid 1990s. Nearly a decade has gone by since the ``screw Nevada'' bill and the scientific evidence against Yucca Mountain is growing. It has become scandalously obvious that Yucca Mountain was the wrong mountain to bet on. It is in an earthquake zone, it is in an underground flooding zone, it is in a volcanic eruption zone, for crying out loud. On top of that we find out that the rocks at Yucca Mountain cannot contain radiation like the politicians had hoped. So back to the drawing boards to find another way to screw Nevada. By 1995, illogical legislation took a new direction, something called a temporary storage site in Nevada. The nuclear industry figured they could build a temporary site because it would not have to meet the strict standards of a permanent dump, and once the waste was in Nevada, it would never leave. But a funny thing happened on the way to a temporary dump. President Clinton promised to veto it and that threat, coupled with the hard work of some Members of the House and the Senate, has frozen the temporary concept for half of a decade. But now, given that the temporary dump will not fly, we see S. 1287. This is nothing but a transparent effort to throw out radiation standards and sneak the date several years closer for shipping nuclear waste to Nevada. This is nothing but a temporary dump proposal in disguise. The President recognizes that and will veto S. 1287, and the Senate vote already proves the veto will be sustained. Can we get off this act of futility and move on to worrying about the important issues that confront this Congress, that confront this country, education, health care, Social Security, and campaign finance reform? This is what our constituents want. That is what the people of Nevada want. We will not stand for 1287, and I ask my colleagues to join with me to stand up and oppose this onerous, ridiculous piece of legislation.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1695. I particularly wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his help with this issue; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who was instrumental in making sure that this, in fact, was heard by all the parties; the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for his extraordinarily diplomatic work on these efforts; and I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for graciously acknowledging my involvement, and I wish to do the same to him. Mr. Chairman, I represent the fastest growing district in the United States, which is located in one of the fastest growing States in the United States. I have 5,000 new residents a month coming into Southern Nevada to establish residence and raise their families there. In addition to that, we have 32 million visitors a year coming to Southern Nevada to enjoy the exciting family entertainment that Las Vegas offers to its visitors. A very large percentage of that 32 million visitors that come to Las Vegas do so by accessing McCarran Airport. Because of the unprecedented growth and the extraordinary growth that we have experienced in Southern Nevada, it has become apparent recently that the McCarran Airport will be at 100 percent capacity by the year 2008. It was, therefore, imperative that we moved quickly in order to facilitate the ability of Southern Nevada to continue to grow, continue to prosper, continue to allow people easy access to enjoy our Southern Nevada life-style. Therefore, it became very important for us to pass this legislation so that we might have another access route for people to come to Southern Nevada. The Ivanpah Airport is not a new idea. It is certainly a very important one for the people of Southern Nevada, particularly for our continued growth and development. One of the things that is particularly important about this legislation is the fact that we have been able to marry and blend not only the economic needs of our community but the environmental needs, as well. And for somebody like me and my family that are now three generations of Southern Nevadans, the environment was as important to me as the future growth and development of my community. To be able to blend both needs for future prosperity and to continue the vibrant economy of Southern Nevada, blend that with the environmental concerns, which we all have, in order to maintain the beauty of the environment and keep it as pristine as possible, to be able to blend both of those very important needs in a piece of legislation that all parties concerned about this have agreed to support I think is great statesmanship, and I applaud everybody that was involved in the process. It was very important that we have all the parties at the table agreeing not only to see that the future of Southern Nevada is in very good hands and the economy, the future growth, and prosperity of our economy is ensured into the next several decades, but also to make sure that the thing we care about the most, our beautiful desert environment, is protected. So I want to applaud my colleagues for working very diligently to make sure that this piece of legislation was, in fact, crafted in a way that everybody could be very excited about the future of Las Vegas, the future of Southern Nevada, not only the economic side but the environmental side, as well.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, to repeal the Social Security earnings test. It is long overdue. It makes absolutely no sense to penalize older Americans for participating in the work force at any time. It makes particularly no sense to penalize older Americans at a time when businesses are clamoring for qualified workers. Our most experienced workers should not be left out of America's work force, out of America's future. Many of the seniors in the district I represent in southern Nevada have asked me to champion this issue on their behalf. They have so much energy, so much talent, so much to continue to give this great country. Congress must repeal this obsolete earnings limit and give seniors the freedom to work without penalty.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a man who has dedicated his life to public service in the community. G. Thomas Miller, married 33 years to his wife, Carmen, and has four grown children, is a devoted family man who has been recognized time and again for his outstanding achievements and service. Inspired by his Catholic faith, he has made a positive difference in the lives of literally thousands of people. Tom began his service to the community 31 years ago with the Catholic Community Services of Nevada, now known as Catholic Charities. For twenty-three of his years at Catholic Charities, Tom worked as the Executive Director. Tom began the Meals and Wheels program, and initiated several other senior programs and youth programs, such as the Holy Family and Henderson Day Care Centers, and the Sunrise Boy Ranch. In addition to his post at Catholic Charities, Tom committed his time to various groups such as the Knights of Columbus #2828, Las Vegas Rotary Club, and as a lector for St. Ann'e Catholic Church, to name only a few. Tom's dedication and devotion to the community was evident in positions he assumed as a Board Member of National Catholic Charities, and of St. Rose Dominican Hospital. Tom has also been appointed to state-wide commissions by three Nevada Governors. Tom has attributed his work and successes to the late Monsignor Charles Shallow, who encouraged him to come and work for Catholic Charities in Las Vegas. Tom's most recent honor was bestowed upon him by the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, who offered Tom an apostolic papal blessing for all of his good works and deeds for the poor and youth of America. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a great Nevadan and a great American, Tom Miller, for his commitment to our communities, and his ability to spread peace and kindness through service to the community.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine for helping us highlight this issue, which is very important to me. As the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) alluded to, I was also unmercifully attacked by the pharmaceutical companies. It has only made me more resolute in my desire to provide relief for my older Americans who simply cannot afford the high cost of prescription medication. I quite agree with the gentlewoman when she states, what is the point of being able to create these wonderful miracle drugs if we cannot afford to take them? That is a serious problem in my district. I rise today in strong support of including a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. I am also in favor of lowering the high cost of prescription drugs for older Americans. As a cosponsor of both H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, and H.R. 1495, the Access to Prescription Medications in Medicare Act, I believe Congress must act now to ensure that our Nation's seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs. Why is this issue so important to me? Because I have the fastest growing senior population in the United States in southern Nevada. Each week when I return to southern Nevada, I hear story after story from seniors experiencing great difficulty paying for their prescription medications. They are asking for relief. They are begging for relief. In particular, one constituent's story resonates in my mind. I would like to share that with the gentleman. Sister Rosemary Lynch is an 83- year-old Franciscan nun in my hometown of Las Vegas who is currently taking multiple prescription drugs to treat glaucoma, high blood pressure, and severe allergies. Every month she struggles to pay for these costly medications. Sadly, she is not alone. Unfortunately, there are 14 million other Medicare beneficiaries in our Nation with no prescription drug insurance. Last spring, I asked the Committee on Government Reform to investigate prescription drug price discrimination in the congressional district that I represent, which is the First Congressional District in Nevada. I was appalled, I was appalled, to discover that the evidence showed that seniors are charged 126 percent more for their prescription drugs than are drug companies' most-favored customers. Who are those? The HMOs and the Federal government. In addition, a second study showed that Nevada seniors pay more than 90 percent more for prescription medication, the exact same medication, mind you, that seniors pay for in Canada and Mexico. The result of this is that I have many, many senior citizens who live in Las Vegas, Nevada, live in southern Nevada, live in Henderson or north Las Vegas, that travel all the way to Mexico in order to be able to afford the prescription medication that their doctors in southern Nevada are prescribing. I have made a firm commitment to the seniors in my district, the seniors in the United States, and now Congress must make a firm commitment to our seniors, as well, and pass a comprehensive prescription medication benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries. Tomorrow I will be standing here proudly signing the discharge petitions to urge consideration of the prescription drug bills of which I have spoken. It is my hope, it is my fervent hope, that the leadership in Congress will bring these proposals to the floor so that all seniors can have access to affordable prescription medication.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 41, to honor the 400,000 courageous women who served the United States during World War II. These women have made an invaluable contribution to our Nation. And today, we are proud of their accomplishments and grateful for their service. During the War, these women worked as Air Force service pilots and as members of the Women's Army Corps. These women served the Navy as members of the Volunteer Emergency Service, and they served at shore establishments of the Marine Corps. These women were an important part of our victory in World War II and by serving with diligence and merit, they opened up new opportunities for women everywhere. Tomorrow is Veterans Day. In ceremonies across the country, we will honor those who risked their lives to serve our country. We can not and must not forget those who sacrificed to strengthen democracy around the world and defend our freedoms. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and honor the women who have served our country so well.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Capitol Hill 10 months ago to represent my hometown of Las Vegas, I made a promise to fight for the fastest growing senior population in the country and for all of the working families like mine that have moved to Las Vegas in search of a better life. There are two pieces of unfinished business that are critical to my district, a patients' bill of rights and the prescription drug coverage for southern Nevada citizens. Over and over again I hear from my constituents, from working parents worried about health care coverage for their families, from seniors having to choose between buying food and buying medicine. They need help and they do not care about Washington politics. The patients' bill of rights is a bipartisan issue because everybody should be able to determine the best course of medical treatment and consultation with their own doctor. If HMOs make decisions like doctors, they should be held legally accountable like a doctor. We need to enact a bill that protects the patients' bill of rights, not the HMO's bottom line. We need to pass a bill to ensure prescription drug coverage for seniors. We did a cost survey and found that uninsured seniors in my district pay two, three, or four times the price that insured seniors pay for some of the most common prescription drugs. These drugs keep them alive, but financially it is killing them. I stand up for all of the seniors in my district.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of designating the United States courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse. It is my sincere pleasure to introduce this measure, and I have worked very hard to bring it to the House floor. I would like to thank all of those that helped in this endeavor, particularly the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and my colleague in the United States Senate, Senator Harry Reid. I cannot think of a more suitable honor to bestow on this beloved Las Vegan, who has served the citizens of his home State of Nevada with humility, humanity, compassion, and dignity. In fact, the new Federal courthouse which this bill names is located right across the street from where Judge George attended grade school and within one block of his high school alma mater. I would like to highlight some of Judge George's tremendous accomplishments. From his early days, as both high school and college student body president, Judge George demonstrated outstanding leadership abilities. Judge George served our country as an Air Force pilot before receiving his juris doctorate in 1961 from the University of California at Berkeley. Among his numerous achievements, Judge George has been the recipient of the Jurist of the Year Award, the Liberty Bell Award for public service, and the Brigham Young University Alumni Distinguished Service Award. He has served as former chairman of the State Apprentice Council, former president of the Clark County Association for Retarded Children, and a member of the National Advisory Council for the J. Willard and Alice S. Marriott School of Management. From 1974 until 1984 Judge George served as the United States Bankruptcy judge. He also served as a National Bankruptcy Conference member and an American College of Bankruptcy fellow and a Judicial Conference member. In May of 1984, Judge George was appointed U.S. District judge for the District of Nevada. He served as Chief District judge from 1992 to 1997 and assumed senior status in December of 1997. Not only has Judge George served our Nation, he has also participated in numerous global committees, such as the International Judicial Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference, and has led seminars on legal topics in central and eastern Europe. What an extraordinary example he is for all of us. When I think of Judge George, I see him administering the oath of allegiance to new citizens that are receiving their citizenship in the State of Nevada. I can tell you, when he administers this oath, there is not a dry eye in the house. This very sensitive, very compassionate man welcomes these people as new citizens to our country, and he does it with such charm and dignity that it makes us all very proud to be Americans. That is why it is most fitting and proper to honor the long, distinguished career of Judge George with this designation. I urge all of us to support this. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for an increase in America's minimum wage. The current minimum wage pays $10,712 a year for full-time work. That is not even enough to lift a family of three above the poverty line. America needs families earning a decent living, wages good enough to afford a home and a car and a quality education for our children. That is how we grow the American economy. This year my colleagues are proposing to increase the minimum wage by $1 over a period of 2 years. In my home State of Nevada more than 60,000 workers would benefit from this increase. Opponents say that a minimum wage increase would be bad for the economy. I do not believe that. The last time we raised the minimum wage, the job market boomed, and unemployment fell to a historically low 4.2 percent. That is what we enjoy now, and our economy has never been stronger. Keeping minimum wage workers below the poverty lines means that taxpayers everywhere are in effect picking up the tab for the costs of that poverty, Mr. Speaker, whether it be through food stamps, hospital emergency room visits or the social consequences of children neglected by their parents who work excessively long hours just to get by. An increase in minimum wage benefits businesses, families, women, children, minorities, every aspect of our communities. It benefits all of us. Congress just gave itself a $4600 pay increase, more than two times the pay raise that the minimum wage bill proposes. Yet here we are still debating the merits of a pay raise for the people who serve our food, care for our children, clean our office buildings and perform countless other jobs that our economy depends on and are vital to the daily functions of our society. Americans deserve a decent day's pay for a hard day's work. Let us do the right thing in this Congress. Let us pass the minimum wage increase. America's working families need it, they deserve it, and they should have it.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1655. This amendment is intended to help America harness the brain power of top scientists in a quest to solve one of the great technological challenges facing our Nation, neutralizing, not merely storing, high- level nuclear waste. I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Science and the ranking member for their support of this amendment. My colleagues in this chamber are well aware of my views on the proposed plan to bury nuclear waste in my home State of Nevada. I am adamantly opposed to it. I am not here today, however, to debate the Yucca Mountain project. Rather, I offer an amendment that I hope will capture the imagination of my colleagues, whether my colleagues oppose or support the Yucca Mountain program. Billions of dollars are being spent studying how to store high-level nuclear waste because it is deadly. No matter where it is put, it is deadly, and the United States and the rest of the world have produced hundreds of thousands of tons of it. Even if we build a repository within a few years, it will be over capacity. We would have to build another multibillion facility and another and another as the next century unfolds. There would still be thousands of tons of waste at the reactors sites across the country. All of this waste is just as toxic as the day it was generated. Even if it was generated 40 or 50 years ago, it is still just as toxic. It takes 250,000 years to fully neutralize it. The scientists who unlocked the power of the atom in the 1940s knew about this problem and the Federal Government knew about it; but with no solution immediately at hand they simply put their trust in science itself, believing that a process would be invented to neutralize high level nuclear waste. I urge support of my amendment to H.R. 1655. The time is overdue to accept responsibility of finding a technological solution to nuclear waste, ridding the Nation of this threat. My amendment would establish a nuclear waste transmutation research and development program. The goal is to develop the technology we need to transmute nuclear waste right at the reactor sites. Transmutation is a process which turns radioactive waste into nonradioactive substances. This amendment fully complies with environmental and nuclear nonproliferation policies. It prohibits development of technology that could isolate plutonium and uranium. This amendment instructs the Secretary of Energy to commence a program of research and development, and it authorizes the secretary to award grants or contracts to industries and universities.

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

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

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of meaningful campaign finance reform and passage of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. This Congress must act to restore public confidence and participation in our electoral system. Today the House finally takes up this important debate. I urge my colleagues to support Shays-Meehan in its current form. The American public deserves a debate on meaningful reform, not a weak substitute disguised as reform. If we are to maintain public trust in our political process, we have a duty and an obligation to address this issue. Let us ban soft money and stop the attack ads disguised as issue advocacy soft money pays for. Let us strengthen the Federal Election Commission and give it the teeth it needs to enforce campaign finance laws. The American people are tired of politicians who talk about reform but do nothing to enact it. Let us show our constituents that this time we mean it. Let us pass this important piece of legislation.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Bilirakis and Mrs. Maloney, who are the co-chairs of our congressional caucus on Hellenic issues, by organizing this special order on Cyprus and for their leadership on this issue. I rise today to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus. As a result, an estimated 35,000 heavily armed Turkish troops continue to occupy 37% of the island. Nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots, who fell victim to a policy of ethnic cleansing, were forcibly evicted from their homes and became refugees in their own country. Tragically, a quarter of a century later they are still refugees as they continue to be prevented by the Turkish occupation army from returning to their ancestral homes. To this day, over 1,600 Greek Cypriots--civilians, soldiers, women and children--including four Americans of Cypriot descent, have been missing since the Turkish invasion of 1974, and their fate is still unaccounted for. The Turkish Government refuses to provide any information of their status. In June, the leaders of the seven most industrialized countries and Russia, the G-8, urged the U.N. Secretary General to invite the leaders of the two sides to comprehensive negotiations without preconditions in the autumn of 1999. As the G-8 leaders stated recently in Cologne, ``The Cyprus problem has gone unresolved for too long. Resolution of this problem would not only benefit all the people of Cyprus, but would also have a positive impact on peace and stability in the region.'' Several rounds of negotiations have taken place which have failed, principally because of a lack of political will on the Turkish side and its refusal to abide by international law and to comply with Security Council resolutions which provide the framework for a solution. Moreover, Turkey has upgraded its military presence on the island, it has made repeated threats against the Republic of Cyprus for further military action and has spared no effort to block any progress toward a just and viable solution. If a solution is ever to be achieved, it is essential that the Turkish side respond positively to the call of the international community for a resumption of the negotiations without preconditions and within the agreed parameters. Sadly, Turkey continues to reject numerous gestures of goodwill by the Cyprus Government to facilitate the achievement of a solution. The Cyprus Government has canceled an order for the importation and deployment of a Russian defense air-to-missile system on Cyprus, and has put forward a comprehensive proposal for the complete demilitarization of the island, which has also been rejected by the Turkish side. The current status quo is unacceptable. It is imperative to take all necessary steps to actively support all efforts to end the forcible division of the island and its people and reunify Cyprus through a just and lasting solution. I urge Turkey to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and to work constructively for a solution to the Cyprus problem. Twenty-five years of occupation are enough.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 2398, a bill that would have disastrous consequences for the economy of my district, Las Vegas, Nevada. H.R. 2398, referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, is an example of the worst type of Federal Government meddling in local matters and senseless overregulation. I believe this is an issue of importance to Members of Congress and local governments across the country. Here is the situation in a nutshell: the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors' Authority needs to expand its convention center to accommodate the growing needs of major trade shows and conventions. This type of business is the lifeblood of the economy of my district, and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on it. I know, because I worked in the tourism business for many, many years before coming here, and I served as a business consultant trying to meet the needs of the convention industry in my hometown. I know firsthand how critically important it is for Las Vegas to expand its convention center, and I know how important these facilities are to dozens of other communities around the Nation. Just 3 weeks ago, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors' Authority was ready to issue revenue bonds exempt from Federal taxes. As my colleagues know, local government entities routinely issue tax exempt bonds to meet their building needs. The bond measure would allow my hometown convention center to add enough floor space to meet the needs of the convention business and maintain our reputation as one of the finest convention venues in the world into the 21st century. The bond measure was the result of responsible local government planning for the future, to maintain a strong economy for the benefit of the 1.3 million residents of southern Nevada. Then something shocking and outrageous happened, and it happened right here in this House. From 2,500 miles away, one of my district's most important economic development projects was torpedoed, but only temporarily, I hope. At the last minute the convention authority was forced to postpone its sale of bonds after H.R. 2398 was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on June 30. The remarks of the gentleman from Texas in the Congressional Record indicate Houston, his hometown, cannot compete with Las Vegas as a convention destination. He targeted Las Vegas with legislation designed to stop the expansion of the new convention center. H.R. 2398 bears the obscure and seemingly harmless title of The Private Activity Bond Clarification Act of 1999. In reality, this measure would drop a bomb on the proposed Las Vegas convention center expansion and on every other public building project in the United States that uses similar tax exempt financing. The Las Vegas convention center expansion project is a model of prudent use of public monies and sound planning. The bonds were to be repaid through hotel room tax revenues, exactly the revenues that would grow because there would be more convention space, attracting more visitors to southern Nevada. With a Federal tax exemption, the cost of the convention center bonds would be low and the convention center will be able to accommodate conventions that otherwise would be turned away. The financing through tax exempt bonds meets every State and Federal rule and regulation. But now, out of the blue, comes H.R. 2398. This bill seeks to kill the Federal tax exemption by changing the IRS codes, even though the current IRS codes set clear qualifications for projects in order to be tax exempt. And I might add that this project in Las Vegas meets all of these current qualifications. H.R. 2398 is simply a solution in search of a problem. It sets out to fix something that ain't broke, and in the process H.R. 2398 could do a whole lot of damage throughout the United States. H.R. 2398 could drive up the costs of convention centers and arenas around the country by banning tax exempt bonds for those projects. It promotes the absurd concept that the Federal Government should tax local governments. For no good reason, H.R. 2398 gobbles up local dollars by forcing local entities such as the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority to borrow money at higher interest rates because they would no longer qualify for Federal tax-exempt status. This amounts to an unfunded mandate and an onerous burden on our cities and our towns. I say we should be encouraging the economic boost that convention centers bring to a community, not discouraging them. H.R. 2398 is totally out of step with the times. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) must be aware that we are in an era of streamlining the IRS, not expanding it. We are in an era of reducing government intrusion on State and local matters, not meddling in them. We are in an era that recognizes the value of public-private partnerships to stimulate economic growth. And we are certainly in an era when we are all trying to lower the tax burdens, not raise them. H.R. 2398 is on the wrong side of all of these issues and we must reject it for the economic health of our local communities. The defeat of H.R. 2398 will also defeat Federal Government meddling in local affairs and defeat overregulation and it will be a victory for common sense.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment in an effort to help stem the tide of bureaucratic overreaching by the Secretary of the Interior when it comes to trampling on the rights of States to regulate gaming activities within their borders. This amendment would prohibit funds from being expended to approve Class III gaming on Indian lands by any means other than a tribal-State compact entered into by a State and a tribe. There are four compelling reasons to vote in favor of this amendment: First, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the Indian tribes to force the States to allow gaming within their borders by suing in Federal court. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that allows the Secretary to take it upon himself to approve compacts where the States and tribes have not agreed. In many cases, the tribes are now completely bypassing negotiations with the States because they know they will receive a more favorable ruling from the Secretary of Interior. Second, the National Governors Association and the States Attorney General believe that the Secretary lacks legal authority for rulemaking and that statutory modifications to IGRA are necessary to resolve State sovereignty immunity issues. Let me share with my colleagues what the National Governors Association stated on this issue. They strongly believe that no statute or court decision provides the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior with authority to intervene in disputes over compacts between Indian tribes and States about casino gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute an attempt by the Secretary to preempt States' authority under existing laws and recent court decisions and would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating gambling compacts with States. Third, while not an entirely enthusiastic supporter of the National Gaming Study Commission, I do agree with its adopted language that opposes the Secretary of Interior empowering himself to grant Class III gaming licenses to Indian tribes. Why, my colleagues say? Because the Gambling Commission, after a 2-year exhaustive study, determined that Indian gaming was poorly regulated throughout this country and out of control. Finally, there is nothing in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which grants this authority to the Secretary of the Interior. This amendment would prohibit overreaching by the Secretary of the Interior of the worst kind. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help reign in a bureaucracy that is so obviously out of control that it would grant gaming licenses in States and jurisdictions where both the Governor and the people do not wish to sanction this activity. May I say before I close, I have lived in Las Vegas for 38 years. I grew up there. I know gaming. I agree that the poverty on the Indian reservations is horrific. But if anyone thinks granting Indian tribes gaming licenses is a panacea for the reservations' abject poverty, they are sadly mistaken. Certainly there must be better ways of bringing economic development to chronically poverty stricken Indian reservations and of correcting a failed and disgraceful national policy when it comes to our Indians. Giving them carte blanche support to have gaming on their reservations by the Secretary of the Interior is not the way to go.