Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Duelfer report submitted by the chief U.S. weapons inspector to Congress yesterday confirms what we already knew: Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons, no weapons programs. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a plan to recruit or the capabilities to rebuild his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

Yet, George Bush, Dick Cheney continue to mislead the American people by ignoring the facts and trying to justify the invasion of a nation that we now know posed no imminent threat to the United States. It is bad enough that we went to war based on the worst intelligence in this Nation's history. What is shameful and unforgivable is that the President who led us into this unnecessary war refuses to acknowledge our profound mistake and take responsibility for it.

The smirk, the swagger, the unbending stubbornness of this President has worn thin in the face of the reality of what is going on on the ground in Iraq. It is time that we elect a President with true leadership characteristics who will not lie to the American people and who can restore the respect and honor we once enjoyed in the world community.

Mr. Speaker, are we better off today than we were 4 years ago? If you live in Nevada, the answer is no. The number of Nevadans living in poverty has increased by 11,000. The family income in Nevada has dropped by $1,511; 82,000 Nevadans lost their health insurance. There are now 400,000 Nevadans who live every day without health insurance. They pray they do not get sick. Those who are lucky enough to have health insurance saw their premiums go up by an average of 3,229. What working family can afford that?

Gas prices in Nevada are the highest in the Nation; 26,717 Nevadans filed bankruptcy in 2003. That is a 48 percent increase since Bush became President. Nevada has the strongest economy in the United States. So if people are suffering in the State of Nevada, can you just imagine what is going on in the rest of the country.

After 4 years it is time for new leadership in the White House who will fight for all Nevadans and who will fight for you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. I would like to thank Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Porter, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Pombo, and the members of the Resources Committee for their diligent work on this bipartisan legislation that is important to all Nevadans.

The Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act is the result of the cooperation and support of the entire Nevada delegation. This carefully crafted piece of legislation strikes a delicate balance between encouraging economic development in Lincoln County, protecting Nevada's environment, and managing essential natural resources.

The Federal Government controls over 98 percent of the land in Lincoln County. Allowing for the private development of a portion of this land would provide for an increase in economic growth in Lincoln County. Property taxes collected would be reinvested to maintain critical government services and improve infrastructure and recreational opportunities within the County. Proceeds from land sales will also be reinvested to preserve and manage parks, trails, and natural resources, and pay for development of a multi-species conservation plan.

This comprehensive legislation will aid in the preservation of our natural resources and public lands in Lincoln County. Nearly 770,000 acres of land will be designated as wilderness, and thousands of acres in Lincoln County will be protected to create more parks and trails for future generations. I am extremely pleased that the Mount Irish, Big Rocks and Mormon Mountain areas were included as wilderness designations in the final version of this vital legislation. These sites are rich in archeological artifacts and wilderness designation provides the necessary protection for these treasures.

I recognize the importance of ensuring that environmentally sensitive lands are protected. Under this legislation the Bureau of Land Management will complete a full environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Another provision provides the Secretary of the Interior the authority to set aside 10,000 acres of the land to be auctioned for potential cultural and natural resource issues that may arise.

This sensible piece of legislation will provide an economic boost to the communities of Lincoln County and protect and promote Nevada's unique natural areas while providing exciting opportunities to sustain future growth in our great State.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Democrats unveiled a new blueprint for the future, our New Partnership for America's Future, a plan that will move our Nation in the right direction by promoting prosperity, national security, fairness and opportunity, as well as supporting our communities and demanding accountability.

I want to focus today on national security. Nevada has the highest percentage of National Guard troops deployed in Iraq, 40 percent of Nevada's National Guard. Over 1,500 Nevada National Guard and Reserve troops have been deployed overseas. These brave men and women are our next generation of veterans.

Republicans have not kept their promises to our current veterans, and I have no confidence that we will be able to do any better for these new veterans. Republicans refuse to end the Disabled Veterans Tax. Instead, they passed a plan that fails to cover over 5,000 disabled veterans in Nevada.

Democrats will keep our promises to our veterans and will keep America safe with a strong military, sound diplomacy, resources for our first responders and heightened security for our ports.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to share some of my thoughts with my colleagues, because I thought when President Bush took office, he promised to maintain the projected budget surplus. He promised to pay off the national debt and help the middle class working Americans. Instead, what I have seen is his policies have led to record deficits, increased Federal debt, and have put a squeeze on the middle class. These failed policies burden all Americans and endanger the future of hardworking families in Nevada and throughout this Nation.

When President Bush took office in January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus. Because of the irresponsible and failed economic policies of the Bush administration and the congressional Republicans, we can now expect a 10-year $3.5 trillion budget deficit. This is a $9 trillion, dare I say it, dare I use the word, flip-flop.

This year's deficit alone is a record $422 billion, the largest deficit in this Nation's history. We have gone from one of the largest budget surpluses in our Nation's history to the worst deficit our Nation has ever seen. And it does not matter what these neoRepublican economists are now saying. The facts are deficits matter.

Federal deficits directly affect every American. Higher deficits mean increased interest rates, higher car payments and rising mortgage costs. If the deficits continue the way they are, mortgage rates could go back to where they were in the 1980s, through the roof, making the dream of American home ownership virtually impossible for working families in this country. If interest rates rise by just 1 percent, 1 percent, homeowners will pay an additional $1,200 in interest payments every year for a typical $150,000, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage.

Mountings deficits have also increased the Federal debt. The Federal debt was $6.7 trillion at the end of 2003. By the way this administration is going, the debt is going to be over $14 trillion in another 10 years. The Bush administration's solution to this skyrocketing debt, just raise the national debt ceiling for the third year in a row.

So what does an increase in the Federal debt mean to the people we represent? This year, Americans will spend $159 billion, an average of $4,400 per family, to pay the interest on the debt. Our constituents, the good people of Nevada, South Carolina and Virginia, want to spend their money on something else other than paying off the national debt. How about paying down their credit cards? How about paying their own student loans or house payments?

And how far is this President willing to go? How much more will this President drain from American families. How long are we going to put up with his fiscal foolishness and irresponsibility?

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans have had plenty of opportunities to fix this financial mess. They have not. They have refused to require spending offsets for new tax cuts as well as for new spending. We call this PAYGO, and it is essential to restoring this country's fiscal health.

In the 1990s, PAYGO led to budget surpluses and the largest economic expansion in this Nation since World War II, and it is hard to imagine responsible leaders rejecting this proven and successful budget policy. PAYGO, what is it? It is simple, we do not spend what we do not have. You pay as you go. It makes sense to everybody else except President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress.

This administration and this Republican Congress are failing American families by failing to address our growing deficits. The first of 77 million baby boomers will be collecting Social Security benefits in less than 4 years and Medicare in less than 7. We should be preparing now by saving more and getting our Nation's economic house in order. Are we doing it? No we are not. President Bush and the Republican Congress are closing the door on a house on fire. They are running up the biggest deficits in history, no planning, no savings, no economic strategy, just reckless, foolish borrowing and spending.

To make matters worse, the Bush administration and Republican leaders are pushing for new tax cuts for corporations and for people who do not need more tax cuts. New tax cuts are not the solution. In 2004, this past year, 46 percent of Nevada taxpayers, the people I represent, received a tax break of less than $100, and what did Nevadans get for this $100?

Since President Bush took office, health care costs for families have risen $793; college tuition and fees have increased over $1,200; and gas prices have gone up an average of 33 percent. The average Nevada family now spends $495 more this year on gas than they did when President Bush took office. A $100 tax break barely dents the skyrocketing cost of living.

It is time for President Bush and Republicans in Congress to address the enormous financial burdens these growing deficits are placing on us. It is time to stop turning a blind eye to the burdens their failed policies will place on our children. It is time the American people hold President Bush and the Republican Congress accountable. I do not know what we have to do to make the American public wake up and see what is going on because night after night, day after day, we stand here, and we tell the American public what is going on and what is going to happen, and until we realize the seriousness of these deficits and the foolishness of this administration's fiscal policy, I fear that we are going to be in a world of hurt when this is all over.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hayworth amendment. Tribal nations have established commercial gaming enterprises because of the economic prospects and to improve the living conditions of their tribal members. Before gaming, many of these tribes had little or no economic development and next to nothing on their lands to provide a foundation of commerce.

If you had come to Las Vegas when my family came to Las Vegas over 4 decades ago, you would have found similar circumstances. A remote place in the Nevada desert with virtually no economic activity. My community looked to gaming, and now Las Vegas has one of the most vibrant economies in the United States. The key to Las Vegas' success is a strong relationship between labor and management. As a result, our casino workers have good-paying jobs, good benefits, good working conditions. Workers at tribal gaming facilities deserve the same.

The National Labor Relations Board ruled it has jurisdiction at casinos operated by American Indian tribes. This decision ensures that the rights of all workers in this country, including those working on tribal lands, are protected. Las Vegas is a shining example of why such an atmosphere of respect between employees and employers strengthens the entire community.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment which is one- sided and jeopardizes ongoing discussions between those parties impacted by the ruling. Rather than resolving the situation, this amendment may only cause deterioration in efforts to come to mutually beneficial solutions. The NLRB has ruled and this Congress should not overturn that ruling.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 3 years since the 9/11 attack on our Nation. Are we safer than we were before 9/11? Are we safe enough? The 9/11 Commission has done its job; now it is time for Congress to do ours.

Homeland security is still pitifully underfunded. Our police and firefighters are struggling to cope with the dual responsibilities of homeland security and traditional public safety in law enforcement.

The Bush administration has foolishly underfunded first responders and port security. The administration has failed to include a single dollar in its budget for rail or transit security.

First responders in southern Nevada tell me that we must direct more resources to those on the frontline on our war against terrorism: police, firefighters, hospital personnel. Given the President's plan to transport thousands of shipments of deadly radioactive nuclear waste across the country, it is imperative that the President plan to protect these proposed mobile Chernobyls from the possibility of a terrorist attack. Yet we have done nothing to ensure that our rail lines are safe.

Republican leadership has failed to come forward with a meaningful homeland security plan. They failed to address the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and they failed to provide for the needs of our first responders.

This Congress needs to act now in order to protect the people of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark an important victory for the people of Nevada in our 20-year struggle against becoming the Nation's nuclear waste dump.

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously upheld its decision that radiation standards for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain were not based on sound science and would not protect the health and safety of the American people. In ruling for Nevada, the court found that the Bush administration deliberately set radiation standards for Yucca Mountain that were not in keeping with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences as required by law.

The Academy reported to Congress in 1995 that waste stored at a repository would remain deadly for 300,000 years or more, and concluded that radiation standards for the Yucca Mountain project should reflect these scientific standards. Rather than incorporating the findings of the National Academy of Sciences when crafting safety guidelines, the Bush administration ignored the law, ignored the science, and knowingly ordered the EPA to draft a radiation standard not based on the science, but an arbitrary period of 10,000 years. The gap between the science and the EPA standard? A mere 290,000 years.

The court's ruling voids the radiation standard established by the Bush administration and is the latest in a series of setbacks that have clouded the future of Yucca Mountain. These include the lack of funding in Congress, a refusal by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to certify an electronic database required for licensing the repository, and a lawsuit filed by the State of Nevada challenging a portion of the administration's transportation plans for Yucca Mountain because they do not meet necessary NEPA standards.

On their own, any one of these issues is significant enough to stop the Yucca Mountain project in its tracks. But the nuclear industry has friends in the White House and is in control of Congress, and they are gearing up for a fight.

The administration's only option for addressing the court's ruling is to have the EPA revise the radiation standards to reflect the danger identified by the National Academy of Sciences. Such a standard will require that the repository isolate waste for 300,000 years or more. Yucca Mountain cannot possibly meet this science-based standard. The nuclear industry also knows that this court ruling would doom plans to ship nuclear waste to Nevada.

They are already planning a push in Congress to waive the requirement that radiation standards for this repository conform with the science. Changing the rules in the middle of the game seems to be standard operating procedure for this Congress. Putting politics over the safety of those people I represent and denying Nevada the protection of our courts and our court system of checks and balances is something this House of Representatives has done before. It must stop.

Changing the law will allow the administration to continue to railroad Nevadans by allowing Congress, not the National Academy of Sciences, to determine radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. There is not one Member of this esteemed body who knows anything, not one thing, about radiation standards or how to store nuclear waste safely at Yucca Mountain, not for 3 minutes, much less 300,000 years. Will Congress choose a 10,000-year standard? 5,000? Maybe Congress in its infinite wisdom is going to opt for no radiation standard at all.

When it comes to Yucca Mountain, there is no limit to the hoops this administration and Republican leaders in this House will jump through or the lies and misrepresentations they will tell to move this project forward.

I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there will come a time in the near future when you will be asked

to decide whether politics or science should prevail in establishing radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. I urge you to respect the role of the courts in its decision determining the EPA did not follow the law, and respect the right of those who live in Nevada to challenge the notion that Yucca Mountain is safe.

Science, not politics, should guide this Nation's policy on nuclear waste disposal. That is what George Bush promised when he first campaigned for President in the year 2000, and that is what he said when he came to Nevada just 3 weeks ago. He said he would respect any court ruling against Yucca Mountain.

The courts have spoken. Now it is time for the President to act on his promise as well. The second highest court in the Nation has spoken. Work on licensing Yucca Mountain cannot continue until a new radiation standard is crafted that incorporates the work of the National Academy of Sciences.

The President ought to stop this folly and stop it now and demand that the EPA comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals decision.

As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of our Nation. Waiving a science-based radiation standard to expedite this project means waiving the health and safety protection that we have promised all of Americans. The last time I checked, the great State of Nevada is in the United States and deserves the same protection as any other State.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leadership still does not grasp the importance of reducing our Nation's deficits. Instead, they continue to focus on misplaced priorities.

Our Nation faces record deficits, and we ought to tackle the real problems that deficits pose. Deficits put a strain on the economy. They threaten Social Security and force families to bear the burden of our Nation's debt.

Over the next 6 years, Nevada families will pay on average more than $20,000 out of their own pockets to help cover the cost of the national debt. Instead of dealing with this, the Republican leaders have chosen this week to focus on legislation that would erode the separation of powers by removing Federal court jurisdictions to review challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

It is incomprehensible to me that Republican leaders have deemed this the pressing issue when millions of Americans have no health insurance, we still have not passed a transportation bill, and our deficits are skyrocketing out of control.

Let us focus on what is really important to American families, attack rising deficits with sensible approaches and let us let all of this extraneous nonsense go by the wayside where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, last week the second highest court in the United States ruled that the proposed radiation standard for the Yucca Mountain project is inadequate to protect the health and safety of the American public and that the EPA knowingly ignored scientists' recommendations when formulating the standard. The Federal Court of Appeals found that the EPA blatantly disregarded the findings of the National Academy of Sciences that radiation levels will reach their peak in 300,000 years, and instead set a 10,000-year radiation standard. The gap between the science and the standard, a mere 290,000 years.

This ruling is the latest proof that the Yucca Mountain project is not based on sound science. When recommending the site to Congress, President Bush knew this radiation standard was not in keeping with scientific findings. Candidate Bush promised that he would not send nuclear waste to any proposed site unless it was based on sound science. President Bush reneged on his promise, ignored sound science, misled the people of the State of Nevada and approved the Yucca Mountain project. Thankfully, the court ruled in favor of science and the people of the great State of Nevada.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lantos amendment; and I thank him, thank him for bringing this forward.

Per capita income in Egypt hovers around $1,000 a year. Illiteracy, 30 percent, over 50 percent for women. With this kind of poverty, why are we continuing to fund the military complex instead of providing economic aid to the Egyptian people? There is no need for military assistance to protect Egypt's borders. They have no enemies in the region.

But let us please examine their record.

When I hear my colleagues talk about their aid in our war against terrorism, who are we kidding? They have contributed no combat forces in Afghanistan. They have contributed no help to the United States in Iraq. They have done nothing to stop the virulent anti-Semitism and anti-United States rhetoric that is rampant in their media, and they do not need $1.3 billion in order to support Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza.

The Egyptians claim they are supporting Israel's efforts in the Gaza, but how are they doing that? They have done nothing to stem the flow of arms and terrorists. They have done nothing to close the tunnels. They have done nothing to help train a single Palestinian in their security forces.

Their economy is in shambles. It is time that we do something for the Egyptian people.

Mr. Chairman, I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for introducing this amendment which I have supported year after year. I rise in strong support of this amendment.

The very idea that we are giving any funding to the Saudi kingdom with all of its oil, with all of its wealth, is nothing short of astounding. It boggles my mind. Not only is this a regime that allows terrorism to exist, they have exploited it worldwide. Not only have they exploited terrorism, they are the leading financiers of terrorism. The thought that one cent of American money is being spent in Saudi Arabia is an insult to the memory of those who

died in the attack on this Nation of 9/11.

Let us never forget that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Knowing this, knowing this fact, did the Saudi Government express one word of remorse, of regret to the families of the 9/11 victims? Not one word.

The Saudis are constantly declaring to the United States that they are our partners in peace. Partners in peace? Are we talking about the same Saudis that support and encourage and finance terrorism, the same Saudis that exude racist and antiSemitic hatred, the same Saudis that allowed terrorists to escape after killing 16 westerners at a Khobar resident tower compound, the same that have the worst record on the planet when it comes to religious intolerance and discrimination? These are our partners in peace?

The Saudis claim that they are vigorously prosecuting and persecuting terrorists. Who are they kidding? Saudi efforts to prosecute terrorists are inept at best and, more accurately, practically nonexistent.

Since 9/11 not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups has been punished, not a single one. Is supporting the Saudi royal family the best use of American taxpayer dollars? Absolutely not. I do not want my taxpayer dollars going to the Saudis, and I do not want anyone else's. Let us pass this and send a strong message to our so-called partners in peace that they are with us, or they are against us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution and wish to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their extraordinary leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his efforts and a special thank you to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his work and his dedication to protecting Israel.

On Friday, July 9, the International Court of Justice handed down an advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence and declaring its construction illegal. This biased decision is the latest in a long line of blatantly anti-Israel actions by the international community. This nonbinding advisory opinion should be recognized for what it is, a thinly veiled effort to hijack a respected international body solely for the narrow purpose of condemning the State of Israel for its efforts to protect its innocent citizens from suicide bombers.

The issue before us goes far beyond continued Palestinian terrorism. The issue is the use of the ICJ to condemn Israel for acting in its own defense.

The issue is the court being asked to adjudicate a case that should never have been before the court in the first place. The International Court of Justice was not the proper forum for discussing Israel's response to continued Palestinian terror. The United States joined 25 other nations, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, the Czech Republic, Micronesia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Marshall Islands and others in submitting objections against the court hearing this case. Twenty-five nations in all.

When the United Nations General Assembly asked the court to address only one aspect of an ongoing conflict, it deliberately made Israel and its security fence, rather than continuing Palestinian terrorism, the issue. Congress must speak on this issue, and we need to speak clearly. We must condemn the politicizing of international organizations and oppose the hijacking of multilateral entities for political purposes. We must ensure that international entities like the ICJ can continue to advance peace and security and work to resolve conflicts.

Under article 51 of the U.N. charter, all nations possess an inherent right to self-defense. However, the ICJ rejected the argument that Israel's security fence falls within this right to self-defense. In the last 3\1/2\ years, nearly 1,000 Israelis have been killed by suicide bombers coming from Palestinian territories. Since 1993, over 50 United States citizens have been killed and 80 more have been wounded by these same murderers.

I wear on my arm a band commemorating one of the United States citizens that was killed by a Palestinian terrorist bomber. Children have been targeted on their way to school. Families have been destroyed as mothers have been killed riding buses. Israel has been living under a state of siege, with its reserve military forces activated and checkpoints set up. Yet the court claims that Israel's right to self- defense does not apply. Does not apply? What better case could there be for the right of self-defense?

The implications of this interpretation are staggering. By ruling that article 51 of the charter has no relevance

outside of armed attack by one state against another, U.S. sanctions against the Taliban or al Qaeda could no longer be justified as self- defense. Using the court's logic, Spain would not be able to defend itself against another tragic train bombing. Using the court's logic, our Marines are forbidden under international law from defending themselves against warlords and terrorists. Using this court's logic, the United States cannot respond to the tragic bombing of the USS Cole.

What kind of logic is this? Are nations no longer permitted to fight terrorism and protect their own citizens? It is incomprehensible to me why Israel continues to be singled out. Saudi Arabia has built a nearly 75 kilometer barrier on their border with Yemen to halt the smuggling of weapons into the kingdom. India is completing a 460-mile electrified barrier in the contested Kashmir area to halt infiltrations by terrorists. And Turkey built a barrier in an area that Syria claims as its own.

Why have these security fences not been brought to the International Court of Justice? Why has the United Nations been silent on these issues? Is Israel's right to self-defense less valid than that of the Saudis, the Indians, the Turks? I think not. And are Israeli lives less valuable than Saudi lives, Indian lives, Turkish lives, American lives? I think not.

The solution to resolving this conflict lies in Gaza and Ramallah, not in Manhattan or The Hague. The path to a lasting peace lies in fulfilling the terms of the road map, which begins with a rejection of terrorism and incitement, a dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure, and real reform by the Palestinian authority.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Bush administration forced through a sham prescription drug bill that does absolutely nothing to lower drug costs, prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies and blocks the reimportation of drugs from other countries. Under this bill, 20,000 seniors in Nevada will actually pay more for their prescription drugs than they need.

A recent study reported that the prices of the top 30 brand-name drugs used by seniors rose by four times the rate of inflation in 2003. For years, seniors throughout the United States have been struggling with the dramatically increasing costs of their medications, while seniors in Canada can purchase the exact same drugs for 40 percent less.

Seniors need help now, and we need new leaders in the White House who will fight for all Americans' interests. Protect our seniors and not the drug companies.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the economic engine of this country. My home State of Nevada is considered one of the most business-friendly States in the Nation. In fact, Nevada has the fastest growing number of women-owned small businesses in the country.

The Bush administration talks about the importance of our small businesses, yet the President's budget eliminated funding for the SBA's 7(a) loan program. Our entrepreneurs depend on these loans as the only source of affordable, long-term financing for their small businesses.

Yesterday, the House voted to restore the funding for this program. That sent a clear message to this administration that we will not tolerate this attempt to jeopardize the strength of the small business community.

Yesterday's vote was a vote for small businesses in Nevada and throughout the United States that depend on the SBA's 7(a) loan program to live their dream of owning a business, expanding their existing business, and hiring new workers.

It is time for new leadership in the White House. We need a President that not only talks about the importance of our small businesses, but follows up those words with action to fight for our small business community.