Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week House Republicans refused to override the President's veto of lifesaving stem cell research. Their action will hurt our Nation's effort to find cures to diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and cancer.

The stem cell research bill could have directly benefited an estimated 100 million of our fellow Americans, those personally fighting these diseases and their family members who share their suffering and pain. The legislation would have expanded Federal funding for extremely promising embryonic stem cell research while at the

same time imposing strict ethical standards.

House Republicans refused to listen to our Nation's leading scientists, biomedical researchers, and health organizations who said this legislation can save lives. More importantly, they refused to listen to the pleas of their own constituents. Instead, they once again supported a President who has no interest in giving our researchers the tools they need to find cures to diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. They were pandering to a very narrow part of their base. Shame on them.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and a very special thank-you to my very good friend from California, Tom Lantos, for his leadership on this issue. I rest better at night knowing that he is our leader. And I am very proud of him and very delighted to be here today.

I am not going to take all of the time, which is uncharacteristic for me. I just couldn't have a resolution of this magnitude on the floor of the House without coming here and lending support. Two minutes could never be enough for me to speak on this issue, and I am afraid even 2 hours might not be long enough for me to express my feelings and my views.

I grew up in a family where the very existence of Israel changed our lives. I was born in my grandmother's apartment on the Lower East Side of New York, and grew up hearing stories of what their lives were like in Europe before they came to this country and how important Israel was to the survival of the Jewish people. And while the Jewish people were people of the diaspora and had managed to survive without a nation for 5,000 years, the very existence of Israel gave each of us a tremendous sense of confidence and well-being, knowing that we had a homeland of our own.

I was not alive in the 1948 war, or the 1956, when Israel was attacked again by its Arab neighbors. 1967, I was more

aware, and 1973, of course. What I find incomprehensible and something I simply cannot understand, that here we are, so many years after the creation of Israel, after the aftermath of the Holocaust and the very reasons that Israel was established, and we are still debating throughout the world whether Israel has a right to exist.

I am so proud of my colleagues for introducing this resolution. I think it strikes the exact right note at the exact right time in our world's history.

We cannot allow this to continue. Israel has a right to exist, have secure borders, and lead a life for its citizens. And I think the time has come for the world body, led by the United States of America, to step up to the plate and say enough is enough. And this resolution is a remarkably good start. I thank everybody for supporting it.

I am very proud of the speeches that my colleagues have made, and I look forward to voting for this, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for the resolution.

The current crisis in the Middle East was caused by an unnecessary, ill advised, and unprovoked attack on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah by terrorist organizations who have called for the elimination of Israel.

There are victims of these terrorist attacks innocent Israeli soldiers and citizens and there are perpetrators of these terrorist attacks--Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no moral equivalency in this struggle.

To those who incomprehensibly condemn Israel or who attempt to find some equivalency, let me state the obvious.

Every sovereign nation has a right and responsibility to protect and defend its people.

For those who think that Israel overreacted--If I was the mother of a 19-year-old soldier peacefully guarding my country's border and my son was kidnapped by a terrorist organization, I would expect my government to do everything in its power to bring my boy home. An Israeli mother should expect and get no less. If I was living on the border of my country and a terrorist group was continuously lobbing rockets into my town where I live, where my children play, I would demand that my country do whatever they had to to eliminate the threat--Israel should.

There should be no mistake about who is behind this crisis, Iran and Syria. Iran's president pledged to wipe Israel off the map and he refers to Israel as an ``illegitimate nation.'' Syria's troops occupied southern Lebanon illegally until 2005.

This is a strictly defensive action on the part of Israel.

There is an internationally recognized border with Lebanon. Israel unilaterally completed its withdrawal from Lebanon over 6 years ago. For 6 years, the Lebanese government has done nothing to step-in and establish control over part of its country.

They did nothing, and left a power vacuum, filled by Hezbollah, in the southern third of Lebanon. Hezbollah uses southern Lebanon to lob katusha rockets into Israel with the hope of killing someone, killing anyone. They are not there to build a nation, protecting a people, laying a foundation for a better Lebanon--they are there to kill Israelis.

Israel did everything it could possibly do to avoid a conflict in Lebanon--asking time and again that the government of Lebanon take control and police their territory. Unfortunately, these requests went unanswered and the terrorism continued to grow.

On its border with Gaza, Israel also faces unrelenting terrorist attacks. After years of waiting, and praying, and hoping for a peace partner, Israel chose to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza.

It uprooted families who created beautiful settlements. These families built homes from nothing, farms from dirt. Three generations were removed, some focibly, from the only homes they had ever known.

I know. I was there.

I saw Israeli soldiers carrying Jewish settlers in their arms across the border out of Gaza.

There were tears in the eyes of the settlers and there were tears in the eyes of the soldiers.

One would have thought that the Palestinians would have used this opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they were capable of self- governance. Instead of building homes, schools, and infrastructure, they have used Gaza to launch thousands of Kassam Rockets at innocent Israelis.

The international community must ensure that Hamas and Hezbollah are disarmed.

The international community must ensure that Iran and Syria end their support for Hezbollah's and Hamas's terrorism.

Hamas must renounce its charter that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel or be cut off from the rest of the world.

Syria and Iran must be punished for their support of Hezbollah.

The 3 Israeli soldiers must be returned--alive and unharmed.

Congress must pass this resolution condemning the attacks on Israel-- they are indefensible and unacceptable--and supporting its unconditional right to defend itself, which every nation on this planet has the right to do.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa for yielding.

I rise today to congratulate the people and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the 15th anniversary of the closure of the former Soviet nuclear test site within their borders. I am pleased to commend Kazakhstan on its tireless work for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and I call upon the administration and my colleagues here in Congress to assist Kazakhstan in assessing the environmental damage caused by Soviet testing.

This is a very important and very personal issue to me. I represent southern Nevada, where the United States detonated over 900 nuclear bombs at the Nevada test site in the 1950s and 1960s. Nevadans and residents of surrounding States paid a very heavy price for this testing especially during the above-ground testing years. Environmental contamination and the devastating impact on the health of the people living in this area, living in the southwestern region of the United States of America, were unconscionable and unacceptable and can never be allowed to happen again.

I remember as a kid growing up in Las Vegas, so many of my friends' mothers and fathers worked at the Nevada test site. They would be bussed into the test site during the week. They would be bussed home during the weekend. Little did any of us realize that they were being contaminated as they worked for our government in the attempt and in the thought that they were doing something good and important for national security.

I recall, after being elected to Congress, going to a meeting of all the former Nevada test site workers, at least those that were still alive. There were 200 people in the room when I walked in. We asked that everybody in the room that had been a worker at the test site who had some form of cancer, if they would mind standing and acknowledging that fact. Every single person in that room, all 200 of them, stood up because they were all suffering from a form of cancer.

Radioactive contamination from tests in both Nevada and in Kazakhstan indiscriminately spread across the globe, eventually causing world powers to recognize the terrible health risks, stop atmospheric testing, and finally end all testing. We must prevent a return to nuclear testing, and we must continue to redress the problems that have been caused by testing over the last 60 years and continue to cause environmental and health threats from the United States to the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan, to the South Pacific, Marshall Islands, and many other places that have been harmed by nuclear testing.

Today is the 60th birthday of my friend and partner in opposing nuclear proliferation, His Excellency Kanat Saudabayev, the Ambassador to the United States from the Republic of Kazakhstan. I do not think it is appropriate to acknowledge the fact that he is in the gallery, but I will be joining him in the gallery to congratulate him on reaching this milestone when I conclude my remarks.

It was my great pleasure in June to cochair, at his suggestion, a public symposium in Las Vegas on the Legacy and Lessons of Nuclear Testing in Kazakhstan and Nevada. Over 100 of my constituents joined me and the Ambassador for this remarkable event, and it was with a strong sense of commitment that I submitted into the Congressional Record the Ambassador's and my joint statement of opposition to nuclear proliferation and our ongoing commitment to working for a safer world.

I salute the Ambassador, his President, and the people of Kazakhstan and look forward to working with them on eliminating the threat of nuclear testing and nuclear weapons proliferation and congratulate them for their very courageous actions.

I wholeheartedly support H. Res. 905. I commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa, for drafting this timely and important resolution, and I strongly urge its passage.

Thank you very much, coming from you, who truly was a leader in this issue. I appreciate the recognition and do not deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and ask for its immediate passage. Since its establishment in 1930, Magen David Adom, or MDA, has been denied membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross for refusing to replace its red Star of David emblem with one of the approved symbols.

For nearly 60 years, the International Red Cross refused to admit MDA unless it adopted the red cross or the red crescent as its symbol. This past December, a third additional emblem, the red diamond, was finally established. It is about time.

Since 1949, the Magen David Adom Society was the only national organization denied full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. It was denied full membership simply because it used a red star instead of a red cross or a red crescent.

It should not have taken 60 years for an honest discussion of MDA membership in the Red Cross, free from religious intolerance or bigotry. During that time, the American Red Cross stood alone as the only member of the International Red Cross to protest the exclusion of the MDA.

In those 60 years, in spite of the official slight, MDA has performed heroically, aiding those in need and providing humanitarian assistance. It has done this without regard for race or religion. It did this to help alleviate pain and suffering throughout the world, even among Israel's enemies.

In April of this year, MDA was in Romania assisting the local population after the disastrous flooding of the Danube. After Hurricane Katrina, MDA collected donations, clothing and equipment in Israel to help meet the needs of the hundreds of thousands of homeless.

Last month, the state party to the Geneva convention adopted the neutral red diamond symbol of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement finally accepted MDA as a full member. May I say it's about time.

I join my colleagues in congratulating MDA on its admittance to the Red Cross. While this should have happened 60 years ago, we are glad that MDA has been given the recognition that it has always deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is certainly rampant here in the House today. Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, apparently wants it both ways. He wants to tell us that the Department of Justice is opposed to horse race gambling, but on the other hand the horse race industry is happy as a clam.

Let me quote for you what they have said in their March 15, 2006, press release. It said they had secured language in the Leach bill to protect Internet and account wagering on horse racing. Also, NTRA worked with Congressman Goodlatte to ensure that H.R. 4411 also contained language that protects online and account pari-mutuel wagering.

Obviously, nobody has told the horse racing industry that they are not exempt from this legislation.

After the Judiciary Committee approved the Goodlatte bill in May, the Thoroughbred Times printed an article titled ``Gambling Bill Passes Committee With Racing Exemption Intact,'' which includes the sentence, ``The bill includes an exemption that would allow the United States horse racing industry to continue to conduct interstate account and Internet wagering.''

Now, I was raised in Las Vegas, Mr. Speaker, where gambling is legal. My children were born in Las Vegas; my parents live in Las Vegas. We are now three generations there. I take great exception to those colleagues of mine that malign the gaming industry and, thereby, the State of Nevada.

Now, I know firsthand, coming from a family whose father was a waiter, and on a waiter's salary in Las Vegas because of a strong gaming economy made enough money to put food on the table, clothes on our back, a roof over our head, and two daughters through college and law school. That is not so bad on a waiter's salary, and it doesn't happen too many other places but the State of Nevada because of our strong gaming economy. I can assure you that neither my sister nor I nor any of our friends nor any of our children have had any bad consequences because of the gaming industry.

So when I hear the gentleman from Virginia speak of a carefully crafted compromise, which this bill supposedly is, I think what he means is that he made a deal with the horse racing lobby to exempt them from this bill. And why is that? Because he knew they would fight it tooth and nail unless he gave them an exemption. And his comments to the contrary doesn't make it so.

And when the gentleman from Nebraska stands up and speaks about protecting college students, I have been down this road with him before. When it comes to gambling online, there is nothing, nothing, let me repeat that as loudly as possible for everyone to hear, there is nothing in this legislation that is going to protect college kids on campus from gambling online. We are talking about off-shore gambling sites, Internet sites that are outside of the reach of our judicial system and our regulators.

Parliamentary Inquiries

May I make an inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Conyers for his extraordinary efforts on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Despite the misinformed and misguided claims of this bill's supporters, it would neither prohibit Internet gaming nor increase enforcement capabilities of the United States Government.

Instead, passing this bill will do the exact opposite. The millions of Americans who currently wager online will continue to use offshore Web sites out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement, and they will remain unprotected by State regulators who ensure the integrity of brick and mortar gaming establishments in this country.

I continue to be astounded by the Members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive Federal Government; and yet when it comes to gaming, they are the first, the first to call for government intrusion.

A man's home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home is the province of the Federal Government. This bill was recently included on the House Republicans' American Values Agenda.

Which American values is this promoting? It certainly cannot be the right to privacy. It certainly cannot be the right of individuals to be free to make their own decisions about what type of recreation to enjoy. And, yes, my colleagues, gaming is considered a form of recreation for millions of our fellow citizens.

Gaming is legal in this country in those States who choose to allow it and to regulate it. The vast majority of States do allow gaming and regulate it, whether it be lotteries, racing, card rooms, casinos, or bingo. This bill would make a legal activity illegal in those same States solely because it is done online rather than in a casino or in a church. In reality, the intent of this bill, and it is rather obvious, is to attack and outlaw legal gaming in our Nation.

Supporters of this bill argue that online gaming is a great danger to society and our youth because some people gamble too much and some underage people might access online wagering sites. By that logic, the next piece of legislation we should be considering is banning online shopping. Surely those who overspend their budgets online and young people who borrow their mom's credit card must be stopped by the long arm of Federal law enforcement.

Supporters of the bill before us today claim that their target is the offshore gambling operations that are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States, as Mr. Goodlatte said. Indeed, Internet gaming has grown from a $3 billion industry in 2001, and it is projected to reach $25 billion by the end of the decade.

Americans account for as much as half of that amount. But there is nothing in this bill, let me repeat that, nothing in this bill that will shut down these offshore companies who operate legally in other countries. Like it or not, Americans who wish to wager online will find a way to do so.

The very nature of a free World Wide Web will continue to make online gaming available across the globe, including the United States. Under this bill, billions of dollars will continue to flow out of our country, with millions of Americans wishing to wager online. It is ridiculous, ridiculous to think this bill will actually stop online gaming. Just like Prohibition failed, this prohibition on gaming in the comfort of your own living room will fail as well.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and my colleague from Florida, Mr. Wexler, in offering this amendment.

Despite all the righteous indignation we are hearing about the supposed evils of Internet gaming, this bill specifically and brazenly exempts one giant gambling enterprise from its prohibition. This bill's advocates proclaim the immorality of online gaming and shout that it will destroy our society unless you are betting on horse races.

Mr. Goodlatte asserts that his bill is neutral on the subject of interstate online pari-mutuel betting, but there is no getting around the fact that this bill very clearly and specifically states that online betting on horse racing is not prohibited.

And if you don't believe me, Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the National Thoroughbred Racing Association has said about the bill. In March of this year, after Financial Services approved the Leach bill, the NTRA issued a press release saying, ``The National Thoroughbred Racing Association has secured language in the unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to protect Internet and account wagering on horse races.''

Later in the same release, ``The NTRA worked with Congressman Goodlatte to ensure that H.R. 4777 also contained language that protects online and account pari-mutuel wagering.'' That sounds pretty clear to me.

But wait, Mr. Speaker, there is more. After the Judiciary Committee approved both the Goodlatte and Leach bills in May, the Thoroughbred Times published an article titled, ``Gambling Bill Passes Committee With Racing Exemption Intact.'' The article states that the bill includes an exemption that would allow the United States horse racing industry to continue to conduct interstate account and Internet wagering. And, finally, it includes a quote from the NTRA spokesman who said, ``Not only did the bill pass by a significant margin, but three separate amendments to either slip out or substantially limit our exception were all defeated.'' It sounds to me like they think they got an exception in this bill.

The bill also includes another hypocritical exemption for intrastate lotteries that is highly ironic because, as has been stated here before, this exemption is exactly what the notorious felon, Jack Abramoff, wanted when he reportedly orchestrated the defeat of a similar bill several years ago because it had no exemption for lotteries. Mr. Abramoff, if he were here, would be laughing about this turn of events. I am sure his former clients are giddy.

Our amendment would strike the horse racing and lottery exemptions from this bill. Members who say they dislike Internet gaming have the opportunity to prove it by supporting this amendment.

If we do not adopt the amendment, then this entire debate is a farce, Mr. Speaker, because the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act before us does not completely prohibit Internet gaming. You want to outlaw Internet gaming? This body wants to outlaw Internet gaming? Well, let's do it. Let's test the mettle of our fellow colleagues.

I have heard many speakers talk about the special interests involved in this bill. Well, it seems to me that the most special interest is the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association. They seem to have the most clout because they are the ones that got the exemption.

I ask all of my colleagues to join with me. If you are serious about outlawing Internet gaming, then let's really do it, and let's not carve out an exemption because it suits your purposes and your special interests.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I absolutely am flabbergasted by the righteous indignation being displayed on the other side of the aisle, and it shocks my conscience hearing what I am hearing.

If the gentleman from Virginia is so intent on banning Internet gaming, well, then he should be supporting my amendment. Better yet, I should not have had to introduce an amendment. It should have been included in his original legislation.

If we are serious about banning gaming, then we should ban all forms of gaming, and I can't possibly imagine why he would be opposed to that. When he says it is a poison pill, why, because the horse racing association told him they would fight this if he brought in legislation that had this included and didn't make an exemption out of it?

I am absolutely astounded also by the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), whom I don't think would be offended if I said that he was opposed to gaming of any form. But I find it incomprehensible that in the year 2000 Congress approved a provision allowing online betting on horse racing, and during consideration of the bill on the floor, Mr. Wolf made a statement in which he said, ``This provision deeply troubles me, and would expand gambling at a time when men and women are becoming addicted to this process.'' Now he seems to be okay with the Leach-Goodlatte amendment which specifically exempts the activity made legal by this 2000 provision.

Now, if we want to let the States retain control of this issue, we should not be voting on doing this bill at all. It makes no sense. I would say that we are interfering with the States' rights, not helping them out.

And if you are arguing that the bill is neutral on horse racing, then why is it even mentioned in this bill? And why does the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association think they have an exemption? Is Mr. Goodlatte willing to stand up here and make a statement for the record that the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association and horse racing is exempt and the Department of Justice can go after them and shut them down? I don't think so.

And if you had an opportunity to go online, as I did just yesterday, and looked at the horse racing Internet sites, it is page after page after page. Anybody can log on. Anybody can place a bet. And I don't see any way to prevent children, and I don't see any way of keeping people from spending their hard-earned money on that.

This creates a huge exemption which we will have no control of, and totally, in my opinion, undermines the bill and makes a mockery and a farce of what we are doing here today, or supposed to be doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot today about a carefully negotiated balance in this bill. I would like to know who was involved in this negotiation. I certainly wasn't. Was the horsing racing industry involved? Apparently, they were. Talk about a special interest. The lotteries? Jack Abramoff, perhaps? Because they are all getting exactly what they want with this piece of legislation.

I would like to urge a little honesty on the floor today and urge my colleagues to support the Berkley-Conyers amendment. If you are serious about banning Internet gaming, well, then, let's ban it and let's not make a major exception that can drive a truck through this.

I urge all my colleagues, before you vote on this, go online. Check out horse racing online and see the pages and pages of online betting that you can do when it comes to racing horses. There is no excuse and no reason for this exemption other than you couldn't cut a deal with the horse racing industry, so you exempted them.

I urge everyone to vote for the Berkley amendment and against the Goodlatte bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the symposium, Nuclear Weapons Testing in Nevada and Semipalatinsk: Shared Legacy, Shared Lessons, Ambassador Saudabayev and I expressed our concern over the continuous proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, and therefore, declare the following:

During the cold war, in the second part of the 20th century, the lands of Nevada and Kazakhstan became sites for nuclear weapons testing by the United States and the Soviet Union, and many of our citizens became victims of the radioactive fallout and other contaminants that resulted from the testing. These people tragically came to know the destructive force of weapons of mass destruction. As a result of 928 nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, along with more tests at other U.S. proving grounds, and 456 nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, many thousands of innocent Americans and Kazakhs suffered. Many continue to this day to suffer the consequences of nuclear testing.

In 1991, the people of Kazakhstan, under the leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, permanently shut down the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site and took the courageous decision to voluntarily renounce the world's fourth largest nuclear arsenal. Kazakhstan has so far remained the only country to make such a decisive and wise move which showed the way to a safer world. The United States, at the direction of both Democratic and Republican presidents, has maintained a moratorium on nuclear testing, has reduced its nuclear arsenal, and has aided in decommissioning nuclear weapons abroad.

Unfortunately, the age of nuclear weapons development has not ended. To the contrary, the specter of nuclear weapons is spreading. Today, the aspirations of a number of countries, and of international terrorist organizations, to acquire nuclear weapons are becoming ever more threatening to the future of humankind. Against this background, we are grateful to Kazakhstan for its outstanding contribution to global security. Kazakhstan's leadership and its cooperation with the United States to advance the cause of nonproliferation should serve as an example for other countries. The victims of nuclear testing in Nevada and Semipalatinsk are eternal reminders to the nations of the world to reject developing nuclear weapons, the modern Sword of Damocles that has imperiled humanity for too long, and to join together to rid the world of the threat of nuclear holocaust.

We are most pleased to report that today's Symposium in Las Vegas, Nevada is another step toward further empowering the people of the United States and Kazakhstan to lead all people away from the threat of nuclear weapons, and redress the consequences of earlier nuclear testing. We pledge to work together to strengthen international cooperation to achieve nonproliferation, as we recognize this is the only path we can take to make our planet safe for all nations to pursue a better future for their people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Manny Cortez.

I am profoundly heartbroken by the untimely loss of my dear friend who passed away last Sunday. I adored Manny Cortez and will be forever grateful for his help, his support, his love and his friendship. He was a wonderful human being and a true gentleman.

Manny was more than just family man and a dedicated public servant. He was a visionary who helped shape southern Nevada as we know it today and who worked tirelessly to turn Las Vegas into the world's most famous travel destination.

Manny earned worldwide respect as a leader for Nevada's tourism and hospitality industry. Under his leadership, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority became the gold standard against which all others in the business are judged. His lasting legacy will shape southern Nevada as it continues to grow in the 21st century.

Whether as a public servant or as a private citizen, Manny was dedicated to making southern Nevada a better place to raise a family, run a business, or just to visit. Las Vegas would not be the city it is today without the hard work, vision and dedication of Manny Cortez.

My deepest sympathies go out today to the Cortez family. I know I speak for countless others when I say our community has lost not only a remarkable man, but a true leader who left his unique mark on southern Nevada and its top industry.

I am truly blessed to have been able to call Manny Cortez my friend.

More than any of his truly remarkable accomplishments that Manny could claim over the course of his political and professional career, I know that his family meant more to him than all the accolades or money in the world.

Come this November, I know he will be smiling, knowing that the same call to serve and the same desire to give back to the community that motivated him to seek and serve on the Clark County Commission was at the very heart of his daughter's campaign, Catherine's campaign for Attorney General of Nevada.

Manny Cortez was born on April 29, 1939, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, the oldest of two children of Edward Cortez, a baker, and the former Mary Tapia.

The Cortez family moved to Las Vegas in 1944. As a youngster, Manny attended St. Joseph's grade school and graduated from Las Vegas High.

Manny Cortez attended Nevada Southern University, which later became my alma mater, UNLV, and received an honorary degree from Community College of Southern Nevada.

Elected in 1976 to the Clark County Commission, he served four remarkable terms. During his tenure, he served as chairman of that body, as well as chairman of the Clark County Sanitation District and the Clark County Liquor and Gaming License board.

Manny was also on the governing boards of the University Medical Center, Las Vegas Valley Water District and on the Fiscal Affairs Board of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Prior to his election as a county commissioner, Manny served as administrator of the State of Nevada Taxicab Authority. His background included employment with the Clark County District Attorney's office and the Clark County public defender's office.

Manny began his service on the Las Vegas convention and Visitors Authority board of directors in 1983 and would go on to lead that agency at a time of the most rapid growth for southern Nevada, the Las Vegas strip and for our tourism industry.

By 1991, Manny had earned the title of president of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the largest convention and visitors organization in the United States. That year, southern Nevada welcomed more than 21 million visitors. By the time of his retirement, that number had grown to 37 million visitors annually.

Travel Agent Magazine named Manny the United States Person of the Year for 1999, calling him ``one of the most astute marketers in the tourism industry.''

During his tenure as president of the convention authority, the organization came to be regarded as the travel industry's leading destination marketing organization.

Manny was a participant in the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, and in 2003, the United States Department of Commerce appointed him to the then-newly created U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board. His role on the board included representing Las Vegas and the United States travel and tourism industry.

Manny, and perhaps this is the most important thing, he is survived by a wife, Joanna, who was his beloved helpmate and friend for 45 years; daughter Cynthia Cortez Musgrove; and Catherine Cortez Masto; a sister, Patricia Snider; and two grandchildren, Andrew and Christina, all of Las Vegas.

There will never be a another Manny Cortez, but every time I return home to Las Vegas, his legacy will be on display for the entire world to see and admire.

On a very, very personal note, there is not anybody that was more important to the travel and tourism industry in Las Vegas Nevada than Manny Cortez. He was a dear friend and a mentor to many, many of us who are now serving in public office and have made a

contribution to Las Vegas. His untimely death was a surprise to all of us. We will mourn him, we miss him and we love him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Congresswoman, Mrs. Capps. She is an extraordinary advocate for health care, not only for women, but for families, men, everyone in this country, to make it a healthier country to live in. And I am so grateful for her, for her friendship and for the remarkable mark she has made on this Congress and on this country.

I rise in strong support of House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, May was National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month. Osteoporosis and low bone density affect 44 million Americans over the age of 50. It is a disease in which the bones become more fragile and prone to breaking. Many of those affected are unaware they have osteoporosis and therefore, they are unable to take steps to prevent it.

Like many Americans, I had no idea I was at risk for developing osteoporosis. I thought I simply had bad posture. And it never occurred to me to be screened for osteoporosis. Yet, when I was running for Congress in 1998, I was diagnosed with this disease. Fortunately, within 10 months of the diagnosis, with proper treatment, I was able to stop my bone loss and my bones actually began to strengthen again.

My bill will help raise awareness about the prevention and treatment of this increasingly common disease and encourage those at risk to have a quick and painless bone density test.

While more Americans than ever before have been diagnosed with osteoporosis and are receiving treatment, much more remains to be done to raise awareness about the importance of healthy bones.

Often called the silent disease because it goes undetected in many Americans until they actually break a bone, osteoporosis affects more than 10 million individuals and an estimated 34 million men and women. And yes, Mr. Speaker, men are susceptible to osteoporosis too. They suffer from osteoporosis and have low bone mass which places them at an increased risk for developing this condition.

As of 2003, there were an estimated 3.6 million people who have been diagnosed with osteoporosis. In my home State of Nevada, over 300,000 men and women suffer from osteoporosis and low bone mass. One in two women, and one in four men age 50 and older will have an osteoporosis related fracture in their lifetime.

The consequences of osteoporosis are devastating and very painful. Hip fractures, which occur about twice as often in women as men, are more serious than people realize. Approximately 20 percent of the hip fracture patients over the age of 70 will die in a year after that fracture, usually from complications such as pneumonia or blood clots in the lungs.

Prevention, diagnosis and treatment are the keys to tackling osteoporosis and as a Nation, we must teach people of all ages how to take the necessary steps to keep their bones healthy and strong for a lifetime.

Those at risk who have not yet been tested for osteoporosis need to make an appointment with their physician to have a bone density test. The exams are quick and they are painless and they can be done in conjunction with a regular checkup.

Because of my personal experience with osteoporosis, I am committed to ensuring that my fellow Americans are aware of the importance of early detection and prevention. Men and women can reduce their chances of developing this disease. I encourage everyone to see their doctor and get screened for osteoporosis. It is very silent, but it is a deadly disease.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution that will increase awareness of this disease. I thank my colleague and dear friend, Mrs. Capps, for working with me to ensure that this resolution becomes a reality. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the courtesy he is extending me today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Yucca Mountain and to the $500 million in funding that this bill will waste on efforts to turn Nevada into a nuclear garbage dump.

The families I represent in Las Vegas and north Las Vegas remain overwhelmingly opposed to Yucca Mountain. A recent survey found that 80 percent of southern Nevada residents are against high-level nuclear waste buried only a short drive from homes and businesses in by far the fasting-growing metropolitan area in the United States.

They know that Yucca Mountain is a total failure and that transporting nuclear waste to Nevada is a disaster waiting to happen and an invitation to terrorists looking to build a radioactive dirty bomb.

But that is not the only reason I stand before you today. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are being asked to approve nearly $550 million for Yucca Mountain at a time when the Secretary of Energy cannot even calculate the cost of the proposed dump.

This past February, Secretary of Energy Bodman told the New York Times that his Department no longer, and I quote, ``No longer has an estimate of when it can open the nuclear waste repository that it wants to build at Yucca Mountain, and it may never have an accurate prediction of the cost.''

Let me read that last sentence again: The Department of Energy may never have an accurate prediction of Yucca Mountain's total cost.

The Secretary testified in front of the committee that not only does he not have an accurate prediction of the cost but does not have any idea when Yucca Mountain may open. Yet here we are debating whether or not to spend $550 million on this boondoggle in the middle of the Nevada desert. It is an insult to the taxpayers of this Nation that we even consider spending another half a billion dollars on a proposal that threatens communities in 43 States, threatens our environment, threatens the health and safety of more than 2 million southern Nevada residents, and threatens to break this Nation's bank.

I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle, how can you vote for more spending on Yucca Mountain when we do not even know how much it will cost, when it will open, or whether it will work?

When it comes to reasons to oppose Yucca Mountain, what I have just said is only the tip of the iceberg. My colleagues, how can you vote to continue funding the Yucca Mountain project when there is overwhelming evidence of chronic mismanagement and blatant

disregard for quality assurance requirements? Are you so beholden to the nuclear industry that you will not stand up for the health and safety of millions of our fellow citizens?

In its most recent report, the GAO found that since the 1980s and up until this year there have been massive ongoing problems with quality assurance efforts at Yucca Mountain, including evidence that workers at the site deliberately falsified their own work.

E-mails written by employees conducting experiments at Yucca Mountain described keeping two sets of books, Mr. Chairman, one with the real information, one for the regulators. Allow me to read these e-mails:

``This is as good as it is going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff.'' And another e-mail brags, ``I don't have a clue when these programs were installed so I made up the dates and names.''

While these workers are not being criminally prosecuted for their deceitful acts, and why, I don't know, what GAO found was a quality assurance program at Yucca Mountain riddled with failures that threatened to completely undermine the validity of scientific work done at the proposed site, and these findings are supposed to serve as a basis for licensing Yucca Mountain.

Work performed at Yucca Mountain is so flawed that in some cases the DOE is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to have the science redone in the hopes of salvaging what remains of this project.

So don't let anybody talk to me about sound science. This project is a slap in the face to any scientists worthy of that title.

But we cannot stop there, Mr. Chairman. It is vital my colleagues also remember that the area surrounding Yucca Mountain has been rocked by earthquakes and violent volcanic activity. This is especially troubling considering that waste stored at Yucca Mountain will not even reach its peak danger levels for 300,000 years and will remain toxic for nearly 1 million years.

Are we so arrogant to think that mankind actually has the ability to safeguard all of the nuclear waste ever generated in this country in one place for a period of approximately a quarter of a million years longer than modern humans have roamed the face of the earth?

Let me also remind my colleagues of the groundwater beneath the Nevada desert. Are you willing to risk destroying the ecosystem of the southwestern United States to appease the nuclear industry? I am not. Is that what we want for the future of our communities? Is that what we want for families in Chicago and St. Louis and Denver and Salt Lake and others living along the waste transportation routes to Yucca Mountain, thousands of shipments of deadly radioactive waste over decades traveling along our roads and railways?

There is a better solution, Mr. Chairman. Leave the waste at the plants where it is produced in secure dry-cask storage, where it can safely sit for the next 100 years.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to funding for Yucca Mountain, this legislation also contains $120 million for the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which I also strongly oppose. This dubious project seeks to export nuclear technology to developing nations with the guarantee that the U.S. will take back whatever nuclear waste is produced.

In other words, not only will the United States of America, State of Nevada, be the dumping ground for all of this Nation's nuclear waste, we are now supposed to be the dumping ground for the entire world's nuclear waste?

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the efforts of my colleagues to eliminate funding for GNEP, not only because it threatens to send more nuclear waste to the United States but because nuclear reprocessing creates materials that can be used to create a nuclear bomb.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to remind you that Nevadans are overwhelmingly opposed to seeing the Silver State turned into a nuclear garbage dump. The only safe solution is to keep the nuclear waste at the plants where it is produced in dry-cask storage.

Funding for Yucca Mountain should be eliminated, and we ought to be paying the nuclear power plants for storing this waste.

I am not an advocate of civil disobedience, but, as God is my witness, I will lie in front of any train that attempts to ship nuclear waste to Nevada. I will stand on the highway to stop any truck that is putting nuclear waste in Nevada. Nuclear waste will come to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, over my dead body, I promise you that; and I hope the people listening will contact their representatives and stand with the State of Nevada against this outrage.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my colleagues and the American people to the newest member of the Bush administration's energy policy team. His name is Yucca Mountain Johnny. He is the star of the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Youth Zone Web site devoted to brainwashing school children into believing that burying the Nation's nuclear garbage 90 miles from Los Vegas is safe. The Web site features helpful facts on nuclear waste, as well as games and activities to make high level nuclear waste fun.

High level nuclear waste is not fun. It is dangerous, and the Department of Energy should not be using taxpayer money to politicize this issue or to use the DOE Web site designed to attract children as a propaganda tool.

Yucca Mountain Johnny is full of advice for America's youth. Among his witty sayings, he says, ``The worst mistake is never making one.''

Well, Yucca Mountain is a mistake. This Web site is a mistake. Yucca Mountain Johnny, with all due respect, is a mistake, and to promote the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to our Nation's children under the guise of education is a big mistake.

What is next, I ask my colleagues? Will the Department of Health and Human Services recruit Joe Camel to teach our children that smoking and tobacco is good for them? This is no less egregious.

Whether you are pro-Yucca or anti-Yucca, I hope that we are all pro- children. As a parent, I am imploring my colleagues to let us not allow the DOE to use a cartoon character to persuade our children that nuclear waste is safe and good for you. It is not. This is wrong. This Web site is wrong. Yucca Mountain Johnny is very wrong.

My amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from maintaining a Web site whose purpose is the indoctrination of our children by the nuclear industry, the Department of Energy and other proponents of Yucca Mountain.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I cannot imagine how anybody could think Yucca Mountain Johnny is good for our school children.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on this Web site. It doesn't talk about the risks of transporting nuclear waste through 43 States. It doesn't talk about the potential of accidents or being an inviting target for terrorists. It doesn't talk about the fact that Yucca Mountain is in a volcanic and seismic zone area. It doesn't talk about the chronic mismanagement of the project by the DOE. It doesn't talk about what was contained in the e-mails that said they were ``making up the science,'' ``making up the stuff.'' It doesn't say anything about the existence of safer and cheaper alternatives.

What it does do, some of the pithy sayings, and I can't imagine anybody doing a term paper on this one, ``Think safe, be safe.'' ``Change your attitude and you change the world.'' ``Any idea is worth having.'' ``The best sense for safety is common sense.''

Now, quite candidly, I don't know what the schools are like in your State, but in the State of Nevada, that is not term paper material.

So this is just used for the sole purpose, and this cartoon character was created with taxpayer money, taxpayer money, to convince elementary school children that nuclear waste is a good thing. Why would we want to do this? Why would we use one penny of taxpayer money on Yucca Mountain Johnny? Have we nothing better to do with our resources in this Nation?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I said anything about fear. This is not about fear or creating fear. This is about using taxpayer dollars for a cartoon character when we have better things to do with our money.

It doesn't matter to me if you are pro-Yucca or anti-Yucca, this is not a good expenditure of our taxpayers' dollars, and we shouldn't be using our children as propaganda tools. This is not Communist Russia. The last time I looked, this is the United States of America.

If you will let me redesign this Web site, I might be a little bit more interested in Yucca Mountain Johnny. Right now, just his name is an offense to the people of the State of Nevada.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment.

The project that he is targeting, the gas engine driven air conditioning heat pump development program, is a multi-year partnership between the Oak Ridge National Laboratories and private industry, including, but not exclusively, Southwest Gas in my State of Nevada, to develop a rooftop heating and cooling system for residential and small commercial buildings using natural gas.

Mr. Flake is misinformed. The funding goes to the Oak Ridge National Research Laboratory, not to Southwest Gas. Rather than relying on electricity generated at a power plant to run heating and air conditioning, this technology would use natural gas to produce heating and air conditioning directly, saving precious energy and water, which is particularly important in the drought-stricken Southwest.

This project, in its second year, is an example of what government, working with private industry to find new and more efficient ways to generate power, can do.

I would remind the gentleman from Arizona that our Nation is in an energy crisis. We need to be funding more projects like this, not fewer. The gentleman is obviously sincere in his desire to reduce Federal spending. I wish to echo the comments of many of my colleagues who have said that they would prefer the Congress make these types of funding decisions rather than leaving it to the bureaucrats in Washington.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Well, I didn't write that language.

Madam Speaker, I want to also express my gratitude to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, my very dear friend on the other side of the aisle, and of course my very special friend and mentor, Mr. Lantos. His eloquence was almost matched today by Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Engel. They did a remarkable job. And I do not believe I can equal theirs, but I would like to speak on behalf of this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and I am hoping for its immediate passage. Like some of my colleagues, I also want to express my sincerest sympathy to my colleague and good friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Cantor, for the unnecessary loss of his 16-year-old cousin, Daniel. I am heartsick about that, and did not know until this evening that he had died.

This bill, Madam Speaker, is not about punishing the Palestinian people. This bill is about reasonable demands for United States assistance. There are three requirements on the Hamas-led PA to receive and to continue to receive financial aid from the United States.

You must recognize Israel's right to exist. They must denounce and combat terrorism, and they must accept the roadmap and other past agreements. These are the three simple requirements that must be met in order to receive continued financial aid from the United States.

The problem the Palestinians have, as I have said so many times before is not money, the problem has been and continues to be a complete failure of leadership.

If one was tuning in tonight and listened to some of my colleagues, they would think that the United States has been rather stingy with the Palestinians. But I would like to enlighten those that do not know, that since the 1993 Oslo Accord, the United States has given more than $1.8 billion to the Palestinians. In that same time we have given over $130 million directly to the Palestinian Authority.

After decades of aid and billions of dollars, it boggles my mind that there is no economic self-sufficiency and no improvement to the quality of life for the Palestinian people. Why is this? Because the desperation of the Palestinian people is not about money, it is about the Palestinian Authority failing to do what any responsible government would have done with several billion dollars, provide security for its people, build infrastructure, improve health care, provide economic opportunities, improve education and move their people into the 21st century.

The money is not going to housing. Palestinians continue to live in wretched conditions in refugee camps with corrugated roofs in dilapidated ramshackle huts. The money is not going to schools. If it was, the Palestinian children would be sitting in classrooms being trained as the next generation of doctors and engineers who would lead their people in the 21st century.

The money is not going to security. Rather than imposing security, the Palestinian Authority forces first attacked the Israelis, now they are attacking each other as Gaza is close to civil war.

The Palestinian Authority under Fattah was corrupt and morally bankrupt. Is there any wonder that the Palestinian people turned to Hamas, the most dangerous terrorist organization operating today, to have their basic needs met?

Year after year, we have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians despite no accountability, no modern financial controls, no transparency, and no actual knowledge of where our tax dollars are going, and the continued attacks on innocent Israeli women and children.

I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. However, it is substantially weaker than the one that I originally authored. In my opinion, we should be eliminating all aid to the Palestinian Authority, not granting the administration broad-based exemptions to continue to fund this regime.

The legislation grants direct aid to Abu Mazen for nonsecurity expenses. It also grants direct aid for his personal security detail. Abu Mazen is a powerless and ineffective leader. Since being elected president, he has had every opportunity to create peace with the Israelis and establish a Palestinian State.

When he had the power he would not or could not take the first step to disarm the terrorists and end the violence against Israel. Now he is the President of nothing. Why is the United States continuing to prop him up? Why are our tax dollars being used to support this guy in the first place?

This bill also grants a broad-based exemption for indirect aid through the

NGOs within the West Bank and the Gaza. Why should Americans be forced to foot the bill when the PA is unable to provide us an accounting for literally billions of dollars that we have spent?

Madam Speaker, it is time for the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people to stop blaming Israel and the United States for their utter failure to provide for their own needs. Yassar Arafat stole millions of dollars from his own people.

If Hamas needs money to provide basic services for the Palestinian people, let them hunt down Yassar Arafat's widow and get the millions of dollars that her husband stole from his own people. The problem is a lack of leadership, a lack of vision, a lack of hope for the future, lack of civilized behavior, not a lack of money.

Until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel's right to exist, denouncing and combating terrorism and accepts the roadmap and other past agreements, not only should we not be giving one more dime, we should be asking for a refund from the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans were dead wrong to force American seniors to pick a private drug plan by May 15.

Choosing the right plan is not easy for any of us. Seniors had dozens of plans to choose from. In Nevada alone, we had 44 plans. But this decision was made even more difficult by an incompetent Bush administration that did not give seniors accurate information.

The nonpartisan GAO conducted an investigation which concluded seniors were receiving bad information 60 percent of the time on critical questions concerning which drug plan cost the least based on a senior's prescription drug needs. One in five seniors are now actually paying more for their drugs than they did before they signed up. Seniors received bad information from the Bush administration, and based on this bad information, they made a very bad decision.

House Democrats wanted to extend the deadline until the end of the year, giving seniors more time and preventing an unfair penalty tax from taking effect. House Republicans refused to join us in this effort, and now millions of seniors will unfortunately pay the price.