Shelley Berkley

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of an outstanding Nevadan who dedicated her life to the highest ideals of civic life. Virginia Demmler, served the causes of justice and equality throughout her more than 20 years as a resident of Nevada, providing boundless energy, tireless work and inspiring leadership for Washoe County's Democratic Party and other civic organizations. At the recent memorial service that celebrated Virginia's life, former United States Senator Richard Bryan described her as ``the essence of a citizen activist, totally selfless and committed.'' Virginia was recognized at ``the heart of the Democratic Party of Washoe County,'' by Mary Connelly, State Director for United States Senator Harry Reid. Virginia Demmler's service as Chairman of the County Party as its Executive Director set the standard for principled, effective activism. Washoe County's Democrats have appropriately marked their respect for Virginia's legacy by naming their annual Honor Roll Dinner the Virginia Demmler Honor Roll Dinner, where hundreds of her fellow citizens will attend in tribute to her. As a young woman I became involved in politics and public service in Las Vegas, hundreds of miles from Reno. But Virginia reached out to me to provide guidance and vision that helped chart my course to achieve elected office and to serve all Nevadans with the passion and principle epitomized. I hope my service measures up to her example. Virginia never shied away from helping a good cause. From Common Cause, to Planned Parenthood, to the American Civil Liberties Union, she served with distinction and was always there for people in need, to right a wrong, and to help build a better state. Nevada is a better place, and her citizens enriched, because of the life of Virginia Demmler.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks about premium support provisions in this conference report that will undermine the Medicare system on which older women depend.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership in this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation which contains so many worthwhile VA medical construction projects across the country, including a medical complex in southern Nevada. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, for working closely with me and other members on this important measure. Southern Nevada's veterans population is one of the fastest growing in the United States. The VA predicts that the number of annual visits by veterans in the Las Vegas Valley to their primary health care clinic will rise from 200,000 to more than a half a million by 2010. That is a mere 7 years from now, and the number of hospital beds needed to serve the veterans in my community will increase by 50 percent. The VA is already struggling to address and meet the current demands on the VA health care structure in the Las Vegas valley. Last year, 1,500 southern Nevada veterans were sent to neighboring States because we could not provide the needed services locally. This is a terrible burden on those veterans and their families. They should not have to travel hundreds of miles across the country for needed care. In addition, due to the decrepit conditions and structural deficiencies, the VA evacuated the Addelier D. Guy VA Clinic in Las Vegas after only 5 years in operation, forcing veterans to rely on a string of temporary clinics scattered across the Las Vegas Valley. I cannot tell my colleagues what a travesty it is when I see 80-year-old veterans waiting for a shuttle in 110 degree temperature in the middle of Las Vegas summers, waiting for a shuttle to pick them up to take them from one location to another for their health care needs. It is a horrible sight to see and must be corrected as quickly as possible. In short, southern Nevada is facing a veterans health care crisis. Recently, the Department of Veterans' Affairs released the CARES document which proposes $4.6 billion worth of VA construction projects across the country. The CARES initiative directs funding to construct new facilities in areas where veterans populations are growing such as the Las Vegas Valley. Because of the explosive growth in the number of veterans living in and around Las Vegas, the CARES initiative calls for the construction of a full-scale medical facility, including a full- service patient care hospital and outpatient clinic and a comprehensive long-term care nursing facility of which we have none of those. To fully understand the current health and medical care needs of the 5 million veterans and veteran services that will be needed in the next 20 years, the CARES Commission evaluated the plan and heard testimony in 38 public hearings across the country, including Las Vegas, from veterans, Members of Congress, VA employees, local government officials and veteran service groups. I commend the work of the CARES Commission. This process was done with our veterans squarely in mind, focused not only on those areas that have multiple facilities but also on the fastest growing regions, like southern Nevada, which lack the facilities needed to keep pace with the sudden influx of veterans from other areas of the country. Any plan to address shortcomings in veterans' care must reflect the need to expand services in areas where our veterans live. This bill that I speak of, and that we are here today to discuss, authorizes the Secretary of the VA to provide $25 million to carry out the advance planning of a full-scale VA medical complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, as outlined through the draft of the CARES plan. This authorization is the first step in addressing the health care crisis of the veterans in southern Nevada. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I cannot tell my colleagues how important it is to the veterans across the country.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for giving me the opportunity to speak and share my thoughts with my colleagues, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for being stellar on this issue. I rise today, Madam Speaker, in strong support of House Resolution 453, condemning the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 15 of this year and expressing my sincerest condolences to the victims and their families. This past Saturday, as they gathered together to observe the holy Sabbath, two explosions devastated the Jewish community in Istanbul, Turkey. The first occurred at the city's largest synagogue and symbolic center to the city's 25,000-member Jewish community and the second at Beth Israel synagogue about three miles away. More than 20 people lost their lives and more than 300 were injured as terrorism, yet again, tore the fabric of civilized society and shattered innocent lives. Most of those killed in the blasts, ironically, were Muslim Turks who lived or worked near the synagogues who were passing by when the bombs exploded. This is not the first time that al-Qaeda has targeted the Jewish institutions. In 2002, they killed 12 people in an attack at a synagogue in Tunisia. The Turkish Government immediately condemned the terrorist attacks in the strongest possible terms and I am pleased that the Turkish people have reacted in strong solidarity with the Nation's small and long- established Jewish community. Madam Speaker, as a youngster growing up in Las Vegas, I belonged to the Jewish youth groups, and occasionally the Anti-Defamation League would bring in films of the liberation of the concentration camps in World War II. I cannot minimize the impact of those films and their impact on my life then and now. And I would sit there and watch the films and ask myself how could one human being do such a horrific thing to another, and how is it that more people throughout the world did not stand up and vilify this horrific act. I am here in the United States of America because my grandparents walked across Europe in order to come to this country to escape the persecution that 6 million of my fellow Jews were unable to escape in World War II. For me to have the opportunity to be on the floor of the House of Representatives and not condemn this horrific act of terrorism would be a shame and an insult to not only the 20 people that lost their lives recently in Istanbul, but the millions of other people across the world, Jewish and not Jewish, who have lost their lives senselessly and needlessly to terrorists. I call upon my colleagues to join us, and vote for this resolution taking a strong stance against bigotry and intolerance, racism and anti-Semitism, violence and terrorism. These are very difficult and challenging times that we are living through. But it is incumbent upon all Americans, we in the House of Representatives leading the way, to stand up and condemn this sort of activity before it becomes pervasive and matter of fact.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of S. 1824. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill to provide a much needed payment update to physicians for the next 2 years. I represent Las Vegas, which is home to the fastest growing seniors population in the United States. In my community, we are facing a health care crisis. The rapid growth of southern Nevada has put a strain on the health care system, and many doctors face a tough choice when it comes to treating Medicare patients because reimbursements are not keeping up with the costs of practicing medicine. In addition to staffing costs and utilities and rent, malpractice insurance for doctors in my community has skyrocketed anywhere from 150 to 400 percent. We rely on our doctors to treat more than 150,000 seniors under the local Medicare system; but with the cost of doing business so high and the demands for their services at a premium, in many instances our doctors cannot afford to see new Medicare patients. We used to talk about the quality of health care, but the situation is becoming so bad that we are no longer talking about the level of treatment the patient receives, but whether or not they will receive any treatment at all. My community is struggling to attract enough medical professionals to address the health care needs of our ever-expanding population. But how can we expect more doctors to see more Medicare patients if we continue to cut payments to doctors under Medicare? If we do not act soon, there will be another 4.5 percent reduction in reimbursements to physicians who are treating those who depend on their physicians' care the most, our seniors. If we allow this to happen, the result will be a loss of $17 million in payments to physicians in my State of Nevada alone. The time is long past due that we increase these payments which have limited medical providers from expanding the number of patients receiving care. I have heard from doctors in Las Vegas who say they want to treat Medicare patients, but they are being forced to choose between taking on new Medicare patients or keeping the lights on in their offices and their practices solvent. According to the AMA, since 1991 the cost of practicing medicine has gone up by more than 33 percent, but payments have grown less than 10 percent. For years doctors have provided important tests for seniors for cholesterol, depression, blood pressure, vision, and hearing impairment without any reimbursements from Medicare. Medicare reimbursements for primary care are inadequate, and in January they will be too low for many doctors to continue to serve Medicare patients. Just last year, doctors' payments were cut by 5.4 percent; and if we allow them to be cut once again, this will be the fifth reduction since 1991 and would place doctors' reimbursements 8 percent below 2001 levels. It does not make any sense to be cutting payments to doctors when the costs of practicing medicine are on the rise. Our doctors simply cannot afford to take any more cuts. Already one- quarter of the family physicians across the Nation are saying they can not accept any new Medicare patients. Who knows how many more will choose to do the same in January when they are told their reimbursements have been slashed once again? As a Nation we must provide our doctors with the means to treat and provide health care to our citizens. This motion would instruct the conferees to protect the language in the House version of the Prescription Drug Bill that would reverse the cut to our physicians while providing a 1.5 percent increase in payments for the next 2 years. To fund the increase in payments to our doctors, this motion strikes funding for privatization provisions in the Prescription Drug Bill. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that under a privatized Medicare, premiums would skyrocket for the seniors who choose to stay in traditional Medicare. I am concerned that by increasing the premiums of traditional Medicare, many patients would be forced into HMOs and other private plans. This 1.5 percent increase will give doctors nationwide enough to continue to treat seniors on Medicare, and it will give Congress time to develop and permanently fix this flawed system that shortchanges doctors and continues to restrict the ability of seniors to access health care services. I ask my colleagues to work with me to fix the Medicare physician reimbursements formula which currently threatens to destabilize the Medicare program. Seniors rely on their doctors and the medicines they need to stay healthy. Seniors have waited too long for a prescription drug benefit in Medicare and relief from high prescription drug costs. We must work together for a drug benefit that prevents seniors from risking their health by cutting pills in half or having to choose between paying for medicine and paying for their rent, their electricity or even the purchase of their food. For 4 decades this Nation promised that Medicare would provide health care for all seniors. It is a program that ensures these hardworking older Americans who have paid taxes and have paid into the system will have health care coverage. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to allow our constituents to continue to choose what doctors they see, what hospitals they are treated in, and to continue to access the highest quality of care. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this motion to instruct.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have always believed in providing a prescription medication benefit under the Medicare system. It makes no sense to me that we have a Medicare system that allows seniors to see a doctor, the doctor prescribes the least expensive, most cost-effective way of dealing with illness, which is prescription medication. Many of the seniors in my district and throughout the United States cannot afford the prescription medication that the doctor prescribes. Being a doctor's wife and having a stepdaughter who is a third-year medical student, I do not need to be lectured by the other side of how the effect of these Medicare reimbursements are affecting doctors because I know firsthand and personal what it is doing. I know that the doctors are suffering and that there is a real crisis in health care and that our doctors need to be appropriately reimbursed for the Medicare patients that they see. But what I am opposed to is privatizing the Medicare system, and that is what this legislation does. Make no mistake about it, this legislation, rather than being a prescription drug plan, rather than being a Medicare reimbursement plan for doctors, what this is is the first step in privatizing Medicare, and that would be a disaster for our seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion. My motion addresses the concern of the doctors across the country and ensures that Medicare patients can have access to their doctors by providing these doctors with a 1.5 percent increase in physician payments over the next 2 years. I ask my colleagues to protect our citizens and not have them investing in risky and untested privatization schemes and to put the necessary funding in the prescription drug bill to fairly reimburse our doctors who administer the necessary care to Medicare patients. Instead of putting the Medicare system in jeopardy, we should protect our constituents' access to care. This motion fixes this problem for another 2 years, but I implore my colleagues that in the future we must work together to address a permanent fix for the formula. I urge my colleagues to support our doctors and their patients and vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am absolutely astounded by the continued nonsensical talk about bipartisanship when the Democrats were not even allowed in the room when the decisions were made, when consumer groups were excluded, when there was absolutely no interaction of bipartisanship on this bill, and I dare say that we have not even seen the legislation yet in its completed form because it has yet to come from the House leadership so all of us can review this. So this bipartisan discussion is nonsense. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to enlighten all of us.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an energy bill that will do nothing to help the families living in southern Nevada with the cost of their power. Whatever good provisions may be in the bill are buried under billions of dollars in subsides for the nuclear industry. I am appalled that this Nation would spend one cent more on nuclear energy when there is no safe way to ship and no safe way to store radioactive nuclear waste. There is also no provision in this legislation to address this Nation's dependence on foreign oil. We will be importing just as much oil if this bill passes as we are today. And we will continue our unholy alliance with Middle East countries that export terrorism and finance terrorists. Finally, I am disappointed that the overwhelming majority of tax incentives in this bill are reserved for nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas. This subsides come at the expense of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal that must be a major component of any long-term energy policy for this Nation if this Nation is to ever be energy independent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, oppose the legislation.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to funding for the Yucca Mountain project in the energy and water appropriations conference report which allocates $580 million for the Yucca Mountain project and nuclear waste disposal. This is an increase of almost 30 percent above current spending levels. Appropriating such a significant increase of funds for a project which is riddled with problems is unconscionable. I would like to bring to our attention numerous developments that cloud the future of the Yucca Mountain project. These issues raise major concerns regarding the wisdom of continuing this dangerous folly. Proponents of Yucca Mountain claim that a central site would reduce security concerns at the Nation's 131 nuclear reactor sites. That is preposterous. Even if Yucca Mountain opens, every nuclear reactor in operation will continue to store nuclear waste on site. Instead of eliminating potential terrorist targets, we will be creating a new target, this time in the State of Nevada. Nuclear waste shipped to Yucca Mountain will pass through 45 States and the District of Columbia, traveling on roads and railroad tracks located next to 50 million people over the course of the next 24 years. Residents of cities such as Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City could see multiple shipments of this deadly nuclear waste pass through their backyards daily. The United States Air Force has stated that the Yucca Mountain repository will interfere with training at the Nellis Air Force Base. This would negatively impact military preparedness at one of the Nation's most important training facilities. It is almost unimaginable that we would consider a plan that would limit the ability to train America's combat pilots. Just last month, the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board found that the canisters that will store high-level waste at Yucca Mountain are likely to corrode and leak, resulting in the release of radioactive nuclear materials that will contaminate nearby water supplies. Instead of dumping money into the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain project, we should invest in the development of clean energy sources, such as renewable energy. By boosting renewable energy, we are working to bring down energy costs, create a consistent and reliable source of energy, improve the environment and public health, and reduce our vulnerability to terrorists around the world. We must look far ahead when considering the future of energy. That future is in reliable, renewable energy, not nuclear power. I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of this project. This Congress will rue the day it got into bed with the nuclear industry. The people of the State of Nevada already do.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a cochairman of the Older Americans Caucus, I rise tonight in support of the gentleman from Rhode Island's (Mr. Kennedy) motion to instruct the conferees of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill to provide full funding for vital seniors' nutrition programs. Over the next 5 years, the number of Americans eligible to take part in programs under the Older Americans Act will rise by 25 percent as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement age. As the number of seniors in the United States grows, it is vitally important that nutrition programs are fully funded. In my home State of Nevada, over 20,000 seniors are served millions of meals annually at the senior centers, schools, and in their own homes. In just the past 5 years, the Meals on Wheels program in southern Nevada, which has the Nation's fastest growing seniors population, has grown from serving 350 homebound clients to over 1,000 today. As the senior population rapidly grows, the senior services in Las Vegas are striving to keep up with the expanding demand. The Meals on Wheels program in southern Nevada continues to develop innovative ways to handle the growth and widen their service base to more seniors. For instance, one driver delivers a week's worth of frozen meals once a week to a seniors' home in Las Vegas instead of one hot meal a day. For a senior who is disabled or lives alone, a hot meal delivered to their home or served in a local senior center is invaluable to their well-being and may be the only way that the older Americans are assured that they receive the nutrition that they need to stay healthy. This is especially true for those seniors living under the poverty level. In 2002 the national average of seniors living in poverty was 10 percent. I am sorry to say that in my district 14.6 percent of the seniors are living below the poverty level. For these seniors, assistance in getting healthy meals is critical to their health and their well-being. Not only are seniors grateful for the comfort of a hot meal, but a study of the Elderly Nutrition Program found that senior participants have a higher daily intake of key nutrients that seniors who do not participate in the nutrition programs have. Funding Meals on Wheels and other programs not only ensures adequate nutrition but also provides an important link to supportive in-home and community-based services and empowers seniors to remain self-sufficient in their own homes. The drivers for Meals on Wheels in southern Nevada, all of whom are retired seniors themselves, not only provide meals but are a critical link to the community for many of the seniors that they serve. I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for his leadership in offering this motion and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his support. I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the Nation's senior nutrition programs as a way to ensure the good health and a better quality of life for seniors in Nevada and nationwide.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the prescription drug bill. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1, be instructed as follows: (1) To reject the provisions of subtitle C of title II of the House bill. (2) To reject the provisions of section 231 of the Senate amendment. (3) Within the scope of conference, to increase payments for physician services by an amount equal to the amount of savings attributable to the rejection of the aforementioned provisions. (4) To insist upon section 601 of the House bill.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our nation's veterans. These brave men and women risked their lives for their country--for our country. We owe it to them to live up to all of the promises that we made when they entered the military. I go home every weekend, and I hear from the veterans in my community. These veterans don't have a multi-specialty clinic; they don't have a hospital, and they don't have a long term care facility. But southern Nevada does have one of the fastest growing veterans populations in the nation. Because of this growth, the VA predicts that the number of annual visits by veterans in the Las Vegas Valley to their primary health care clinic will rise from 200,000 now to more than half-a-million by the end of the decade. And the number of hospital beds needed to serve the veterans in my community will increase by over 50 percent. The VA is already struggling to address and meet the current demands on the VA health care structure in the Las Vegas Valley, and these demands will only continue to grow. Last year, 1500 southern Nevada veterans were sent to neighboring states because we could not provide the needed services locally. This is an unfair burden on these veterans and their families. They should not have to travel hundreds of miles for care. To make matters worse, the VA evacuated the Guy Clinic--the Las Vegas Valley's only ambulatory care clinic after only 5 years of service-- forcing veterans to rely on a string of temporary clinics scattered across the community. Imagine what it is like for an 80-year-old veteran waiting in the desert heat to be shuttled from clinic to clinic to receive the health care he needs. For example, a veteran may have to shuttle from a temporary site for a CT scan, then to another site to obtain a prescription for a controlled narcotic, and then to a third site for mental health services. And female veterans who need mammograms will have to shuttle to a different clinic just for that service. As one 81-year old World War II veteran described the situation, ``You're going from one place to another and it gets confusing.'' Don't our veterans deserve a permanent facility to meet their health care needs? In short, southern Nevada is facing a veterans health care crisis and my community is not alone. But here in Washington, Republicans have refused to provide an additional $1.8 billion for veterans health care this year. As a nation, we promised our veterans that we would meet their health care needs, but we have not. We promised to provide them with affordable housing and access to a college education, but we have fallen far short. We have broken one promise after another to those who have put their lives on the line to serve their country. Consider the Disabled Veterans Tax. Under this unfair tax, disabled veterans who retire from the military lose one dollar from their military retirement pay for every dollar they receive for a service connected disability. When a retired Marine Corps major from Nevada was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, he lost more than $2,000 in monthly retirement pay because of the Disabled Veterans Tax. To make up for that loss of income, his wife had to work overtime just to make ends meet at home. I support the Democratic plan that gives our veterans full payment of both retirement pay and disability pay. It is unconscionable that Republicans, who say they support our country's veterans, still have not allowed Members of this body to vote on ending the Disabled Veterans Tax. Instead they have offered a plan that will take 10 years to enact and penalizes those veterans with a 40 percent or less disability rating. But it isn't just honoring the commitments to our men and women who fought for this country, it is also about their families. Whether it is income lost because of the Disabled Veterans Tax or the financial burden a family faces when they lose their loved one. That is why I introduced legislation that would increase the benefits to cover veterans' burial costs. Since 1973, when burial benefits were enacted, these benefits have seriously eroded due to inflation. For example, in 1973, the burial allowance for veterans with service connected injury covered 72 percent of funeral costs. Now, the benefit covers only 39 percent of the funeral costs. Our veterans' families are forced to make up the costs. And for a widow or widower struggling with the loss of a loved one, this financial strain can take a tremendous emotional toll. Our veterans not only deserve better, they deserve the best we have to offer. It is time for all Members of Congress to honor the commitments we made to those who fought and are currently fighting around the world for our nation. Support for our veterans is more than rousing rhetoric on Veterans' Day, it is doing what is fair and moral to fulfill our duties and promises to them.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), in support of House Resolution 431, a resolution honoring the contributions of my good friends, Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, two men who are not only great entertainers but noted conservationists and generous philanthropists. Every year, 36 million people visit Las Vegas hoping to catch a glimpse of these master illusionists. A staple of the Las Vegas community, this legendary duo has brought both magic and success to their many endeavors. Siegfried and Roy have performed for more than 10 million people and have touched countless thousands of lives in my community and across the globe. Despite their enormous popularity, many do not know of their charitable contributions or world-renowned conservation efforts. Siegfried and Roy have made generous financial and personal donations to the communities and local charities in Las Vegas. For more than 2 decades they have devoted their efforts to the conservation of Royal White Tigers and Magical White Lions. Today, these breeds are thriving due to Siegfried and Roy's persistence and successful efforts. On October 3, on his birthday, Roy Horn was injured during a performance. Roy Horn is a close personal friend, and I know his strong spirituality and his persistence will aid him in his recuperation. There has been an outpouring of support from the Las Vegas community and the world, and I lend my voice to those who wish Roy a full and speedy recovery. To audiences, Siegfried and Roy are illusionists without equal. To their friends, they are beloved and respected for all they have given and all they have accomplished. My thoughts and prayers are with Roy Horn and his family during this difficult time.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act. This important legislation takes a strong and decisive stand against international terrorism. It also demonstrates the firm resolve of the United States in opposing those who support terrorism or provide funding and safe harbor for its perpetrators. Syria continues to be a major sponsor of international terrorist groups, and has been listed by the State Department as a sponsor of terrorism since the inception of the terrorist list in 1979. Numerous terrorist groups, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and at least seven more, have headquarters in Damascus. In addition to offices, these groups maintain training camps and other facilities on Syrian territory. Hizballah, referred to referred to as the ``A-team of terrorism'' by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, operates in areas of Lebanon occupied by Syria and receives supplies from Iran through Syria. In doing so, Syria is in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which directs all states to ``refrain from providing any form of support'' for terrorism. Furthermore, their attacks on Israel, launched with the acquiescence of the Syrian government, harm innocent civilians and risk leading to a wider regional war. In addition to its harboring of international terrorism, Syria's 20,000 strong occupation force has continued to occupy Lebanese territory, denying Lebanon its independence and political sovereignty. This occupation has also prevented Lebanon from fulfilling its obligation under UN Security Council Resolutions 425 and 520 to deploy its troops to southern Lebanon. As a result, southern Lebanon is under the control of the terrorist group Hizballah, which has positioned thousands of katyusha rockets opposite Israel's northern border. During our recently concluded campaign in Iraq, Syria aided the regime of Saddam Hussein, allowing arms and military equipment to be transported across the border into Iraq. When Baghdad fell, a number of high-ranking Iraqi officials from the defeated regime were sighted transiting through Syria and it is continuing to permit ``volunteers'' and others to enter Iraq for the purpose of attacking and killing Americans. These actions are not those of an ally nor are they the work of a nation friendly to the United States. As we work toward a more stable and peaceful Middle East, we must be clear that nations that support terrorism will be held accountable. This legislation is clear in its intent and accomplishes just that. I urge its full support and its immediate passage.

Ms. BERKLEY

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, almost everyone has a family member, a friend or a co-worker who has been personally affected by breast cancer. This year, 1,400 women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 300 women will die from this devastating disease in my State of Nevada. Two of my closest professional associates, two women who I work with every day, won their battle against breast cancer; they are cancer free. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I lost my own mother this past July after her 14-year battle against breast cancer. From these battles I have learn the importance of mammography screening and early detection which have led to higher survival rates. Nevada has the lowest percentage of mammograms performed per capita than any other State in the country, only 65 percent of Nevada women age 40 and over have had mammograms within the last 2 years; this leaves 35 percent of the women in Nevada without any necessary information to arm themselves against this disease and the ability to fight it early on. We must continue to get the word out to women that early detection in the fight against breast cancer is critical.