Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 2262.

The State of Nevada is the fourth largest gold producer in the world, ranking behind South Africa, Australia and China.

But this bill is bad for Nevada, bad for this important industry, and bad for the families that I represent. Who here doesn't think that China wouldn't love to immediately see these jobs moved overseas? Who doesn't think that South Africa would like to see these foreign investments moved to their country, and who here in these Chambers doesn't think that Australia would love to see mineral exploration move from the United States to their country?

This legislation hurts, perhaps even kills, the domestic mining industry and, with it, the towns and communities in northern Nevada and western rural America.

The proposed royalty structure, this new tax, would levy a new 8 percent gross royalty payment to this industry, all this despite the fact that not one witness testified before the House Natural Resources Committee in favor of it. Let me repeat that. Not one witness came before the committee to testify in favor of it.

This untried, untested, new tax would hardly bring funds to the Federal Treasury, because when mining communities are decimated, there will be no royalties to collect. Everybody knows that 8 percent of nothing is still nothing.

I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that was ruled out of order because of fuzzy math that my colleagues used to enforce PAYGO. That amendment replaced the 8 percent gross royalty tax with a more modest 5 percent net proceeds of royalty. This amendment is good for three reasons.

First, the net proceeds system is modeled after Nevada's proven and successful program. Why reinvent the wheel and ignore a model that encourages production rather than jeopardizes it?

Second, a net proceeds system provides flexibility for the mining operation when commodity prices are down. This protects the good jobs in rural communities like Elko, Eureka, Lander, Humboldt, White Pine and other counties in Nevada.

Third, my amendment would help prevent significant revenue and job losses for States. Their proposed 8 percent gross royalty, this new tax, will cripple States like California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, in addition to exporting our jobs overseas.

But somehow, CBO scoring my amendment at zero somehow runs afoul of PAYGO rules. The majority party seems to want to waive this in every other circumstance.

This bill, this rule, is simply bad policy, unless you want the mining industry to suffer. If passed into law, the effect will be to hurt the mining industry in the same way we have hurt the automobile industry, the same way we have hurt the steel industry, the same way we have hurt the seafood industry in coastal regions or, perhaps, the textile operations in the Southeast.

I urge my colleagues to oppose destroying State budgets, oppose job loss in rural communities, and oppose the decimation of our domestic mining industries.

Oppose the rule on H.R. 2262.

I want to thank the ranking member for his hard work the last 10 months.

I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, for his efforts on the bill. He was very patient, very respectful. I appreciate his time and energy. We may disagree, but I certainly do appreciate him listening to my concerns and oppositions to this particular bill, so thank you so much.

Also, I thank the subcommittee chairman for a field hearing in Elko, Nevada. I certainly do appreciate that also, giving them a chance to be heard. I know that was appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, mining is the second largest industry in the State of Nevada, which employs approximately 32,000 Nevadans, supporting, obviously, countless numbers of families. These high-paying jobs and their related services are the backbone of the rural community in our State and other rural economies.

I would take, for example, a couple, Larry and Vickie Childs of Spring Creek, Nevada. Larry retired from the mining industry approximately 25 years ago and subsequently went to work for a company in Elko, Nevada, providing miners the tools and equipment that they need. Vickie works at a health clinic for miners and their families provided by the two largest mining companies in the area.

Vickie's clinic employs two pharmacists, four doctors, physician's assistants, nurses, lab technicians, maintenance and clerical people. Larry and Vickie raised four children in Elko, Nevada, one of whom currently today works in the mining industry.

When this bill closes down the local mining operations, the equipment suppliers and the health care clinics will have layoffs, and, obviously, close their doors. The Childs family will begin to lose their homes. The mining industry will join other domestic industry crushed by foreign competition and overregulation.

Despite opposition to this bill in Elko, one of the most affected communities by this bill, the new excessive taxes and burdensome regulations of this bill will kill this industry, and with that industry will go the towns and families that depend upon it.

Clearly, this was not the result of the field hearing that the community had hoped for. All of these measures, many of the supporters will say, are in the name of fairness.

The question is, fairness to whom? Fairness to Nevada? Fairness to New Mexico? Arizona? I know that China thinks it's fair. I would guess that South Africa thinks that this is a fair bill. I would probably even guess that Australia thinks it is a fair bill.

But do you think it's a fair bill to the Childs family in Spring Creek and the many thousands like them? I don't think so.

But just like this bill ignores the futures of the families in Nevada, H.R. 2262 also fails to embrace the realities of the future of our Nation. India and China, with their State-funded purchases of global mineral commodities, should make us consider the long-term ramifications of the health of the domestic mining industry. Also, the technological advances we all want in our future, such as alternative energy, rely heavily on minerals and metals. A hybrid car, for example, requires twice as much copper as a traditional SUV today.

Our national defense will rely on foreign sources of minerals to build our military equipment. Frankly, I don't want to rely on China when we are in a war-time situation.

I urge my colleagues to support rural communities, urge them to support our domestic mining industry for the sake of our families, our economy, and our national security by voting against H.R. 2262.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, more hardrock mining occurs in my district than in any other State; therefore, the remediation of abandoned mine lands is very important to my constituents.

As many of us are aware, abandoned mine lands are the unfortunate legacy of the irresponsible mining practices of the past. Fortunately, mining operations today are held accountable for their practices. So with bad practices of the past ended, we have an opportunity to focus on cleaning up the abandoned mine lands. And the amendment I am offering will do just that.

My amendment will direct half of the revenues deposited in the hardrock reclamation fund to States for the purposes of abandoned mine land remediation, while preserving the Federal Government's ability to fund the national priorities in the bill. My amendment allows the Federal Government to distribute half of the funds as it sees fit. The other half of the funds would go proportionately to States where production is occurring to fund in-place, successful AML programs.

In multiple committee hearings, we heard that States currently do a great job of remediating abandoned mine land sites. They often are only limited by their available resources to conduct remediation projects. To give some of you perspective of how effective State programs are, Nevada has identified more than 20,000 AML sites in need of remediation and is still in the process, of course, of identifying more. The good news is that to date we have secured more than 9,000 of those sites.

Likewise, in Colorado it is estimated that there are about 23,000 abandoned mines. More than 6,000 have been made safe by the State Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety.

So in an effort to get money on the ground to remediate abandoned land mine sites quickly and efficiently, a portion of these funds needs to be dedicated to States where production is occurring. Given that many States have already prioritized their AML needs, we should get funding to them as directly as possible, as quickly as possible. This amendment will expedite the cleanup process that we all want.

My amendment bolsters the ability of States to continue their good work on the ground while providing a way to remediate historic hardrock sites in States where mineral production will not generate sufficient funds to deal with current abandoned mine land issues.

I would urge support of the Heller amendment.

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

I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, again thanking him for his respect and efforts on this particular bill and hard work, and giving me time and efforts for my comments and concerns that I shared during the committee.

I want to thank him for accepting this amendment.

Yes, I will.

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

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 866--H. Res. 643, which commemorated the 9/11 attacks, I was with my constituents in Nevada's Second District. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 865--H. Res. 257, which supports the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, I was with my constituents in Nevada's Second District. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 968, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, the State of Nevada that I represent is home to 6 of the finest soldiers that I have ever met. On my recent trip to Iraq, the last week of July 2007, I had the honor to meet and talk with SGT Anthony Monger, SPC Richard Cook, PFC Joshua Campbell, SSG John Tripp, SPC Lacy Montgomery, and PFC Cory Ward.

As we all know, war is never easy and the people who make the greatest sacrifices during these difficult times are the brave men and women of our Armed Services. Very often this means service members are deployed for extended periods of time away from their friends, family, and children. America must remain committed to our soldiers, and I pray for the safe return of every Nevadan and soldier of the United States.

Generations of Nevadans will enjoy greater peace and security because of the tireless sacrifices of soldiers like Anthony, Richard, Joshua, John, Lacy, and Cory. I am honored to have met these soldiers and commend their service and bravery.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this important bipartisan amendment.

The PILT program compensates counties for the loss of income resulting from Federal lands.

This is something my constituents know a lot about because nearly 85 percent of Nevada's land mass is owned by the Federal Government.

PILT funds are used for critical services on public lands counties such as search and rescue on public lands, infrastructure, education, and many other important functions.

For many years the PILT program has been woefully underfunded.

Again this year, the administration requested a paltry $198 million for this program, which is more than $150 million less than the authorized level.

While the $20 million we are seeking to raise PILT funding by will not entirely make up for the funding shortfall, every penny counts to the counties and families that live in public lands States.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, prioritize the PILT program, and take a step towards adequately compensating the communities that host public lands.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Porter-Heller-Berkley amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. This amendment would strike the funding for the proposed Yucca Mountain site, and help end this enormous financial disaster for the taxpayers and for Nevada.

Colleagues, Yucca Mountain is in my district, Nevada's Second District.

Our State has been dealing with this issue for literally decades, the Federal Government has spent billions of dollars, and we are frankly almost no closer today to opening this site than we were years ago.

As has been stated by my Nevada colleagues, over the past 20 years the proposed site has suffered from gross mismanagement, faulty science and research, and contract mismanagement.

But we aren't just opposed to this site in an arbitrary manner. In fact, a number of solutions exist that are acceptable and safer, like dry-cask storage for example.

If you're opposed to nuclear waste traveling through your communities, creating safety and security hazards in your neighborhoods, then you should support this amendment.

If you're concerned about the taxpayers, wasting their funds, and the wise stewardship of Federal tax dollars, then support this amendment.

Both Senators, the Governor and the House delegation are united in opposition to Yucca Mountain. That should send a very clear message to us here in the House about the opposition in Nevada.

Support the Porter-Heller-Berkley amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of my colleague from Utah, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1100 that will allow for the expansion of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, provided that it is acquired from willing sellers by donation, purchased with donated funds, or exchange.

As those of us from public land States know all too well, public funding for lands management is insufficient to adequately manage the current Federal estate. Nearly 85 percent of my home State of Nevada is controlled by the Federal Government. In Nevada, we have vast management needs. We need funding for important priorities like the management of wild horses and burros, wildfire mitigation and management, endangered species, and rangeland and habitat restoration, to just name a few. And I know this is the case across much of the West.

We need to be cognizant of the fact that every time we add to the Federal estate, it spreads our already limited resources even thinner. As a result, Mr. Chairman, any additions to the Federal estate must be carefully debated and have demonstrable necessities of Federal protection.

This bill was reported out of committee, Mr. Chairman, with an estimated price tag of $2.25 million. Since that time, as mentioned by my colleague from Utah, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation and determined that the actual price tag is $7 million.

That is no small chunk of change; $7 million can provide energy assistance to over 44,000 North Carolina households living below poverty.

Mr. Chairman, $7 million can go a long way to protect veterans in the Asheville veterans hospital, which has been plagued by shortages of nurses and doctors.

Mr. Chairman, $7 million would buy flu shots for all of the children living below the poverty level in North Carolina's 11th District for 11 years.

And in the context of this debate, that $7 million is desperately needed to manage and maintain the land currently owned by the Federal Government. In fact, some of that money is needed to address the $600,000 in deferred maintenance currently existing at the very site that is proposed for expansion.

Additionally, it is unclear to me why this particular piece of property is vital to the Carl Sandburg story for which the park was created and in dire need of Federal protection.

Mr. Chairman, during subcommittee proceedings we learned that this expansion enjoys support from the community and local governments. I understand the importance of communities and Federal land management agencies working together, and it is in that spirit that I am offering this amendment.

This amendment strikes a balance that will allow for the expansion of the park, but will not take away from the already overburdened budget for public lands management.

Henderson County, which is the home of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, has determined that they would like to protect the viewshed area. If this is the priority for them, this compromise amendment will give the community the opportunity to show their support by making a financial commitment to purchase this property, with the Federal Government ultimately responsible for management. I believe that local support can

make this compromise I am proposing a reality.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment allows for my colleague's constituents to achieve their goal while protecting the budgets of our Federal land management agencies, who have a difficult time managing the lands they already own.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and its wise use of Federal resources.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank you for the time and the opportunity to serve with you here in this Congress. I certainly appreciate our freshman class, the work they are putting in it, the voices they have and the changes they are bringing into this Congress. It really is an honor to be part of this freshman class serving on my side of the aisle.

I would like to change direction. You talked a little bit about Nevada and the State of Nevada. My district is more than 1,000 square miles. To give you an idea of every time I go home, I travel about 1,000 miles just in visiting neighborhoods, going to Elko or going to White Pine County and visiting Ely or Tonopah. It is a lot of travel; but it is very critical, as we take these messages back and talk to the people here, what's going on in Washington, D.C., as reflects what is going on in our districts.

I tell you, it is a pleasure and an honor to serve here in this Congress. It is maybe 20 after 10:00 here in Washington D.C., but it is prime time in Nevada right now. My friend from California, it is prime time in your district too, so it is a pleasure to be speaking to your constituents and mine as well.

I tell you, I want to go in a little bit different direction here. It is an issue that is very, very pertinent, very important for the State of Nevada. This is an issue that was discussed this morning in an Appropriations subcommittee on the Department of the Interior, and that is the issue of wildfires. Living and serving in a district as rural as my particular district, which I think is the largest non-at-large district in the Congress, wildfires are a critical issue.

But before I get there, I want to give a little bit of background. First I want to begin with an explanation to those who are viewing this that 85 percent of Nevada is controlled by the Federal Government. A lot of people don't quite understand that, but 85 percent of the land in Nevada is owned by the Federal Government.

As some of you may know, this does present many unique challenges to the communities that I represent. Opportunities, for example, economic growth, development, are stifled by the lack of private lands.

Additionally, local governments are prevented from collecting taxes on the Federal lands in their communities, thereby inhibiting their a ability to provide funds for important services, such as education, emergency care, fire and rescue, transportation, obviously including roads, streets and roads.

I would challenge any State to take 85 percent of their private lands and make it public lands. Take 85 percent of your private lands and put it in the hands of the Federal Government and take the revenues with it. Imagine your inability to have the money necessary for your educational system, the money that is necessary for your infrastructure for roads, money necessary for emergency care, and fire and rescue. That is what we are dealing with in the State of Nevada.

For generations, my constituents have relied upon the land for their livelihood. For the most part, they have been very good stewards. In areas where good stewardship was not exercised, Nevada has done the very best it can to restore those lands back to health.

Nevadans have an acute awareness of the importance of our Nation's Federal lands. For generations, my constituents have been the stewards that have kept important areas in Nevada accessible to the rest of the Nation.

I am greatly concerned by several aspects of the administration's proposed funding levels for fiscal year 2008. Not only did the administration request a substantial decrease in PILT funding, which is Payment in Lieu of Taxes, but funding for other functions is unfortunately low, including zeroing out the Range Improvement fund, which is an important program. It gets dollars to the ground to improve range land health.

One area where I wish to draw particular attention, and I mentioned earlier, is the funding relating to wildfires, particularly in range land areas.

Last year, in Nevada, Nevada alone, over 1.2 million acres, or over 1,500 square miles, were destroyed, causing devastating impacts on the wildlife, livestock and Nevada families. Let me put that in perspective for a minute, 1,500 square miles, clearly much bigger than the District, almost the size of Delaware. In fact, I think it is larger than the size of Delaware, burned in the State of Nevada; the size of Rhode Island, burned in the State of Nevada. You take those States, that is how much land is burning in Nevada each year.

Most of the damage to private individuals is caused by fires that spread from Federal lands onto private property. In a State where a mere 15 percent of the land is available for private ownership, we simply cannot afford this kind of loss. Additionally, it is unconscionable that unlike other disasters, those who are victims of Federally fueled devastation received little or no assistance from the Federal Government.

This is a glaring problem, and I certainly do hope to work with my colleagues, especially the freshman class here, in the future to right this particular wrong. In order to mitigate the disastrous wildfires we have seen in the past, we need to have a healthy range land, which means dedicating funds to range land restoration and management.

A healthy range land will support wildlife, wild horses, livestock, recreation and a variety of other multi-uses. We do not have to choose between those functions if we work to restore our range lands.

To achieve a healthy range, we need to advance commonsense solutions that will protect communities, people in our natural resources. This includes the responsible management of wild horses and burro populations.

It is vital that we use active management to remove excess hazardous fuels, such as pinon juniper, cheatgrass and other invasive species. They fuel wildfires like we saw in Elko County and other parts of Nevada last year.

Since coming to Congress, I have had the opportunity to meet several times with my constituents who have traveled from rural Nevada to Washington D.C., to discuss the devastating impacts of wildfires and what we can do to mitigate and prevent them. To a person, they all expressed the dire need to restore range land health.

As I finish, I want you to know that I agree with my constituents. It is my hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of adequately funding management of our public lands for the purpose of environmental health and multiple use.

I appreciate the time you have given me to discuss this issue that is critically important for the State of Nevada. I am certain for the President of our freshman class coming from Idaho, it is a pertinent issue for his district also.

Thank you, to my colleague from Texas, I appreciate the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule on the budget. It is unfair, and it unnecessarily limits debate on middle-class tax cuts.

Together with a colleague from Pennsylvania, we offer an amendment to ensure that the child tax credit is included in the budget. But the majority won't allow us to offer that amendment today or even have a debate about it. It is a shame that this amendment in defense of the middle-class families was not allowed. The new majority must still be convinced it is their money and not the taxpayers'.

Thirty-one million taxpayers will see their taxes increase in 2011 when the per-child tax credit is cut in half, and that is just the start. The average tax hike on 975,000 middle-class families and taxpayers in Nevada will be almost $3,000. We will likely be told that the budget assumes the cost of this tax provision will be addressed, along with seven others, through some vague ``smoke and mirrors'' policy. My western values told me what happens when you assume. Instead, the Murphy-Heller amendment guaranteed that funds would be there for families instead of wishful thinking.

Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, do the middle-class families make too much money? Is a child born after 2011 somehow less expensive than a child born in 2010? Is the child tax credit a partisan issue? Have those colleagues of mine in the majority like the Blue Dogs lost their way, or have they just been muzzled?

We are going to hear a lot from the majority today about the children, but apparently that is only when it comes to government spending, not middle-class tax cuts. Their rhetoric on tax rings hollow when Congress is muzzled on such a critical debate. Don't assume. Vote this rule down and for middle-class tax cuts for families.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this legislation. The matter is a question of basic fairness, but also serious constitutional concern.

As a former Secretary of State for the State of Nevada, I have spent years trying to figure out ways to promote voting, and I support the voting rights of all Americans. I additionally understand the concerns of Utah for its population that lives abroad outside its borders and their desire for an extra seat.

But I will tell you until this year, Nevada has had a 20-year grip as the fastest-growing State in the Nation, and Nevada's population is about even to Utah's, but Nevada is growing significantly faster than our neighbor.

I understand the concerns of my Utah colleagues following the 2000 census; but to give Utah an extra seat at the expense of Nevada would, arguably, slight Nevada.

I know the intent is good, but the means by which we achieve them are just as important, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the issue before us, the war in Iraq.

In this past year, the American people clearly demanded change. I am new to this body, but I know Nevadans wanted me to help institute changes in the direction of this country.

As we debate this resolution, I really have to wonder if we have heard the American people. This resolution brought forth by the majority says two conflicting things: we are opposed to the war in Iraq, but we are for staying the course. These two positions are irreconcilable.

As I watch this debate, I have not seen any proposals for change. What we are debating today is the same as what has been debated in the past. We stand here in this body controlled by a new majority who campaigned on instituting change, claimed to be the party of change, and has control of the gavel in both Houses of Congress. Instead of offering a path to victory, they are playing politics.

My question is, what does this vote actually accomplish? Does it implement new ideas to win the war in Iraq? Will our country be safer because of this resolution? Does it enable our troops to fight more effectively by giving them the supplies that they need? The answer to these questions is a simple ``no.''

As a newly elected Member, I came here to find solutions to our country's problems. To that end, I am supporting legislation to institute benchmarks. I am supporting legislation that will make our troops and their needs fully funded. I support diplomacy and making the Iraqi Government more accountable.

The message that I want to send on our troop is, I am with you, and you can count on me.

Because, really, we are counting on them.

Mr. Speaker, why can't we be for something today, an actual alternative, instead of debating a nonbinding resolution that tells our soldiers we don't support your mission? Our enemies believe America is weak and their propaganda says the United States is losing the war against terrorism.

Osama bin Laden's deputy and terrorist network have stated that Iraq is the central front in their fight against American and Western ideals. Iraq is the central front to push their radical ideology of hate and intolerance. These are the real bad guys. These are the people we should be focusing our attention on, not tearing down our leaders, commanders and brave soldiers in the field. The reality is the terrorists are determined to kill Americans, wherever we may be. Therefore, we must take the fight to them.

The fact is, this resolution only strengthens our enemies and does nothing to solve or address any of the national security issues facing our country. The stakes are high in Iraq. Nothing less than our very safety and survival is at issue. Nothing less than the lives of the courageous members of our armed services are on the line. It is critical that we have a real debate on the issues and address these points.

Let's, instead, together look for a new way forward, for a path to victory and for the best way to support our brave men and women overseas who are fighting to keep us safe. Let's instead focus on what we need to win this vital conflict, not a meaningless resolution, which is what we are offered here today.

To paraphrase the late Charlie Norwood, a decorated war veteran, ``The choice before us today is clear: either America or al Qaeda.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Emil Frei III, a pioneer in cancer treatment, one of the world's foremost oncologists, and a leader in medical education.

In addition to his many different leadership roles, throughout his career Dr. Frei has made notable advances in cancer treatment. His clinical research has made major contributions to the successful application of chemotherapy, a treatment method that has cured tens of thousands of patients. Dr. Frei served as Chief of Medicine at the National Cancer Institute, Associate Scientific Director Head at M.D. Anderson, Director and Physician-in-Chief at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and is now the Physician-in-Chief, Emeritus, at the Dana- Farber Cancer Institute. He has also served on the advisory or director boards of numerous companies and non-profit organizations, including: Adherex Technologies, Angstrom, CaP Cure, Celator Pharmaceuticals, DIAD Research, Immunogen, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Vion Pharmaceuticals, Aid for Cancer Research, the Cancer Research Institute, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, and the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Frei's contributions have been recognized by numerous awards including the Lasker Award, the Kettering Prize from the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation, and most recently the Inaugural Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Association for Cancer Research.

Not only a medical practitioner but a distinguished educator, Dr. Frei served as Professor of Medicine at The University of Texas for seven years, and at Harvard Medical School for 24 years. The textbook he co-authored, Cancer Medicine, was the first published about oncology, and remains a seminal text in this field of medicine.

Dr. Frei is now retired in southern Nevada, but continues to lecture, write, and offer advice about the field in which he worked for more than 50 years. He now serves on the chapter board of the Southern Nevada Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which will be hosting the inaugural Dr. Emil Frei III Symposium in March 2007.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to Dr. Frei for his committed service to medical oncology, service that has helped thousands of cancer patients under his care and innumerable patients in the future through his leadership and instruction. His exceptional career deserves the highest commendation and praise.