Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the independent bipartisan commission on the BP oil spill issued its final report last month. And what did it conclude? Well, that the Deepwater Horizon that went to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, creating the worst environmental disaster in our country's history, was not an isolated incident; that the problems were systemic across the entire oil and gas industry.

That report was a blistering, scalding indictment of the deregulatory environment which was created at the Department of the Interior that led inexorably, inevitably to this catastrophe, this environmental catastrophe.

But are we here tonight debating legislation to implement the reforms that the commission presented to the Congress in order to prevent another catastrophe like this? No, we are not. We are instead debating whether or not we should have fewer regulations, whether or not regulations that actually protect against incidents like this hurt job creation.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, what we learned from the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe was that lax regulation doesn't save money; lax regulation costs money. Lax regulation does not create jobs; lax regulation destroys jobs. And in this case, lax regulation led to the loss of 11 lives and 155 other individuals who were seriously injured. Lax regulation, ladies and gentlemen, leads to catastrophe.

Boosterism breeds overconfidence, and overconfidence breeds disaster. That's what happens in our financial markets. That's what happens in environmental and health regulation when you just trust the private sector to always do the right thing. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when the government doesn't move in to protect the little guy, to protect ordinary citizens.

The reason that we were able to move from the average age of death at 48 years of age in the year 1900, after 5,000 years from the Garden of Eden until 1900, to 79 years of age just 100 years later is we started to regulate for public health and safety for ordinary people. Methuselah always lived to 900 years. The wealthy always did well. But only when regulation started to be put on the books to protect the meek--the water, the air, and the environment in which people live--did ordinary families start to benefit as well. That's what they want to take off the books. That's the agenda of large companies across our country.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

How do you create jobs? We haven't heard that yet. We haven't heard that yet. Well, they say drilling. Well, last year there were 4,700 new leases that were granted by the Bureau of Land Management, but the oil industry only began drilling on 1,400 of them, only one-third.

Now, we don't really have to worry going forward in the future, because at $100 a barrel plus, ladies and gentlemen, the $40 billion in tax breaks that the Republicans want to give to the oil industry over the next 5 years, we don't have to worry that they are going to go drill, because they are going and drilling.

But why are we giving them $40 billion? Why aren't the Republicans out here as free market devotees saying let's take that $40 billion of taxpayers' money away from the oil industry? Why aren't they doing that? Why are they going to allow the taxpayers to be shaken upside down at the gas pump and have money come out of their pockets for the rest of this year as the price of a gallon of gasoline goes to $3.30, $3.40, all the way up to $4 a gallon again?

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Because the real agenda here is to create as many red herrings as they can about the real agenda. As a matter of fact, we can put an aquarium out here there are so many red herrings. As a matter of fact, so many red herrings are being created by the Republicans in this debate that they wouldn't be an endangered species there are so many things that are taking us off the real agenda that they are taking about. And the real agenda is to make sure that we do not invest in wind, that we do not invest in solar.

And, by the way, in the Waxman-Markey bill that was passed that year, $60 billion was put in to the Waxman-Markey bill for clean coal technology; $75 billion was put into that bill for nuclear technology that they could apply for low-interest loans to build new nuclear power plants in our country, plus wind, plus solar, plus geothermal, plus all the other things that we could do domestically in our country.

What we are talking about here, though, is a different agenda altogether. It's an agenda that will just allow the oil industry to go back to business as usual without the regulations to protect the public health and safety.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do so just to say that Democrats see high unemployment and we look forward. We recognize that American ingenuity, innovation, and hard work can dig us out of this hole by creating high-paying, long-term domestic jobs in new vibrant industries.

The Republican majority, they see high unemployment and they look backwards. They seek to increase the already massive profits for huge international corporations and hope that on their way to the bank they hire a few people here and there.

Ladies and gentlemen, the great challenge of our time is to not allow China and Germany to replace OPEC as the place from which we have to import our energy technologies. If there is no plan which is forthcoming from the Republican majority, which so far has not presented itself, because they have yet to have one bill that actually creates one job come here onto the House floor in the first 5 weeks that they have controlled the majority, then I am afraid that the next generation of young Americans will wonder why all the solar and wind technology is being manufactured in China, and they here in America are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, we only have one speaker remaining on our side, so until the majority is down to one speaker, we would like to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last remaining speaker on our side. I reserve my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I say to the gentleman from Washington State that just 2 weeks ago we passed by unanimous consent the oversight plan which the majority has for the Department of the Interior, and the minority signed off on that oversight plan over all of the regulations and all of the various agencies that come under the jurisdiction of our committee. We did not fight that.

This debate tonight is something that doesn't really even have to take place. The committee--our committee, the Natural Resources Committee--is already fully empowered to do all of the oversight that they believe is necessary, and we will be there joining with them where it is necessary to conduct that oversight.

Coming back, though, to the central point, that's something that we all agree upon. What the American people want is to see what the agenda is for creation of jobs in our country. That's what has been lacking on the House floor since the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives. And that's the most important agenda for our country. And I don't believe that we can accomplish that goal if the Republicans continue with their objective of $100 million in profits going to oil companies at the same time that they want to give $40 billion worth of tax breaks to them.

That is not really a good policy for our country. That's not going to create any new jobs. It would be better if we took that $40 billion, moved it over to wind and solar and all-electric vehicles; that we moved it over to take care of the low-income people whose oil prices are just skyrocketing across this country, so that people don't freeze in their own homes. That would be a better use of that $40 billion instead of handing it over to the oil and gas industry. We would create more jobs, we would protect people and keep them safe in their own homes, and we would have a better balance for where this country should be going. Instead, we're here debating oversight of these agencies, and we agree with the need to do so.

We probably disagree over the extent to which we should deregulate them. In fact, if we deregulate too much, if we take too many regulations off the books, we're just going to see a repetition of the same kind of environmental disasters that have ravaged our country over the years, the same kind of economic collapse that was a result of turning a blind eye to the shenanigans that went on in the financial marketplace with the big Wall Street firms that were not given the proper oversight, and on and on down the line.

So I want to just say again to the majority that we want to work with you on our committee. We want to work with you on the oversight that is necessary. That's why we signed off on the plan to do the oversight. I just think that we have wasted an hour here on an issue that we already agree upon; that we should be partnering to make sure that wherever there is chicanery, wherever there is wrongdoing that we should partner together to root it out.

But I'm afraid that this is part of a larger agenda that really seeks to destroy the wind and solar industries in our country, to cut dramatically the low-income heating assistance that we give to the poorest people in our country, to keep the $40 billion in tax breaks on the books for the largest oil and gas companies in our country even as they are going to enjoy $100 billion worth of profits this year given to them by tax breaks that are a hundred years old, with the price of a barrel of oil now at $100 a barrel.

That is absolutely absurd, ladies and gentlemen. It is a squandering of the limited resources that we have in our country that should be spent on creating new jobs in the renewable energy sector and creating jobs by the millions that young people in our country want to create. They want to able to tell OPEC, We don't need your oil any more than we need your sand.

And as Mubarak is teetering, the one message that we can send to the Middle East is the same message that President Kennedy sent to Kruschev in 1961, We are going to use our technological might in order to fend off this threat that is posed to our country economically, militarily, diplomatically, environmentally. We are going to use this as an opportunity.

That is not what this debate is about. That's where we should move over the next weeks and months. My hope is that we can do it together.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill is the wrong prescription for our country. It isn't just a repeal; it's a bad deal.

It's a bad deal for small businesses and middle class families, who would lose tax credits included in the new law to help them pay for health insurance.

It's a bad deal for grandma, who will face higher costs for the life- saving medications she needs. It's a bad deal for pregnant women, who could be denied coverage when they need it the most.

Lydia Swan, my constituent, shared her story with me during the health care debate last year. Lydia was pregnant when her husband switched jobs. Her new insurance company said her pregnancy was a preexisting condition, and they wouldn't pay any expenses. So Lydia was insured, but she wasn't covered.

That is wrong. It is just plain wrong.

Mr. Speaker, a newborn child should be a pleasure and not a preexisting condition. New parents expect some sleepless nights. They don't expect their insurance company to deny coverage for the pregnancy. New parents should worry about the baby and not about the medical bills.

The new health care law closes the book on these kinds of insurance company abuses. Let us not today reopen it once again. Say ``no'' to this Republican bad deal that takes away patients' rights and freedoms, and say ``yes'' to a health care system that protects American families.

Mr. Speaker, to achieve lasting peace in Sri Lanka, there should be an independent, international investigation into alleged war crimes at the end of the country's 25-year civil war in May 2009. Last August, I joined 57 of my fellow Members of Congress in urging Secretary Clinton to press for a United Nations investigation. I renew this call now. As the Boston Globe stated in an editorial on December 29, 2010:

[From the Boston Globe, Dec. 29, 2010]

Probe Both Sides in Sri Lanka

No foreign leader has fared worse in the cables released by

WikiLeaks than Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who

has been resisting calls for an international inquiry into

possible war crimes committed when Sri Lankan troops wiped

out the secessionist Tamil Tigers in May 2009. In this

particular case, disclosure of an American diplomat's

confidential assessment serves the cause of human rights,

validating the stand of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty

International, and the International Crisis Group. All three

have argued, rightly, for a credible investigation of alleged

war crimes in Sri Lanka, whether committed by the Tamil

Tigers or government forces.

The documents show that US Ambassador Patricia Butenis

observed last January that no regime investigates ``its own

troops or senior officials for war crimes.'' She then added,

in a devastating aside, that in Sri Lanka ``responsibility

for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country's

senior civilian and military leadership, including President

Rajapaksa and his brothers.''

The ambassador's candor illuminates a recurring

contradiction between the moral imperatives of human rights

and the cold logic of diplomacy. Videos and survivor accounts

strongly suggest that hundreds, if not thousands, of Tamils

were stripped naked, had their hands bound behind their

backs, and were murdered during the final weeks of the

government's war against the Tigers. Yet for reasons of

state, neighboring powers India and China show no interest in

documenting and punishing such crimes. All the more reason

for America to heed the awful truth in Butenis's cable and

push for a legitimate UN investigation of war crimes in Sri

Lanka.

This debate is about health care versus don't care.

The Democrats' health care law lowers prescription drug costs, helps middle class families pay for health coverage for their sick children, and expands health care for 32 million more Americans, reducing the deficit by $143 billion. The Democrats' health care law helps grandma afford her prescription drugs.

The Republicans don't care about grandma. They want to take back the drug benefits in the new law. GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party; now it stands for ``grandma's out of prescriptions.'' The Republicans' ``don't care'' repeal shows they don't care about sick children with medical bills pushing families into bankruptcy, that they don't care about grandma and grandpa who need help paying for prescription drugs.

Vote down this rule so that we can help grandma, sick children, and middle class families struggling to pay for health care.

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, on December 6, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower set aside the core of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. In so doing, President Eisenhower began the bipartisan legacy of protecting this majestic national treasure. 20 years later, in 1980, Representative Mo Udall succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge.

Now it is time that we finish the job these great Americans began 50 years ago. Now it is time to permanently protect the Coastal Plain. The Congress needs to pass legislation designating it as wilderness.

If we don't enact permanent protections for the Refuge, oil companies and their allies in Congress will continue to push for short-sighted plans to drill one of our last pristine wild places.

Just last year, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster led to more than 4 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the worst oil spill in the history of the United States. The blobs of oil washing up on Gulf beaches recalled the ghosts of Valdez, and of Santa Barbara.

As we learned from the BP oil spill, the oil companies are prepared to drill ultra-deep, but they are not prepared to do it ultra-safe. Or respond ultra-quick.

What we did discover is that their response plans for a Gulf oil spill included plans to evacuate walruses from the warm waters off Louisiana, even though they had not called the Gulf home for 3 million years.

This disaster was born from boosterism from the oil industry. Boosterism led to complacency. And complacency led to disaster.

When it comes to the Arctic Refuge, we've heard the same boosterism for years. The oil companies and their allies repeat a list of talking points: Drilling has a small footprint. It will not spoil habitats. Drilling can be done in an environmentally safe manner.

Now the oil companies and their allies want to open the Refuge and undo 50 years of protections and eons of solitude, all for less than a couple pennies at the pump more than two decades from now.

Instead of looking for the last drops of oil on Earth, we should be harnessing the wind and the sun to power our economy and create new, safe American jobs.

And unlike an oil well, you don't need a blowout preventer on a solar panel. There's no such thing as a ``tragic wind spill.''

When we look upon the Refuge decades from now, will we see a monument to America's commitment to our natural heritage, or will we see the abandoned wells and spilled oil as a monument to our insatiable thirst for oil? Will the Refuge remain a monument to America's wisdom or will our children and grandchildren only be able to see polar bears, caribou and other iconic animals carved in stone, monuments to our lack of foresight and innovation?

Now is the time to create a refuge for the American people from hundreds of billions of dollars we spend every year on foreign oil. Now is the time to create a refuge from the fossil fuel policies that have devastated the economy of the Gulf. Now is the time to protect the Arctic Refuge.

Madam Speaker, the Oil Spill Victims Redress Act that I am introducing today with the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Castor, would help protect those Gulf Coast residents who have seen their livelihoods destroyed by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

This legislation would clarify that people who have suffered economic harm as a result of the BP spill can seek to pursue claims from all of the companies involved in the disaster in state court. The companies involved in the spill, including Halliburton and Cameron, have argued that the Oil Pollution Act preempts state law and, as a result, that all state law claims brought by the victims of the spill should be dismissed or removed to federal court. Some of these companies, such as Halliburton and Cameron, have even argued that they should be exempt from all suits because they are not responsible parties as defined under the OPA.

To be clear, the underlying statute, the Oil Pollution Act, already clearly provides for claims brought in state court and was not intended to preempt state law. The Act clearly states that ``nothing in this Act . . . shall affect, or be construed or interpreted to affect or modify in any way the obligations or liabilities of any person under . . . State law, including common law.''

However, in light of the legal arguments proffered by the companies involved in this disaster, the legislation that we are introducing today would further clarify the ability of people to seek compensation in state court. We must ensure that we do not forget about the people of the Gulf who have had their lives destroyed by this disaster. We must ensure that all of the companies responsible for the worst oil spill in our nation's history are held accountable. And we must ensure that everyone who has suffered economic damages as a result of the BP oil spill is made whole.

Madam Speaker, my friend and fellow member of Red Sox nation, David Cavicke, the Chief of Staff for the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, is leaving the Committee in January after nearly 16 years on the Hill at the Committee. Mr. Cavicke is an institutionalist--he has sought to work quietly on a bipartisan basis to advance the good of the country across the array of issues within the jurisdiction of the Committee.

Over the years, Mr. Cavicke has ably served the Republican Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. But he has also helped facilitate bipartisan compromise on many vital issues. In 1995, he staffed then- Subcommittee Chairman Jack Fields when our Committee enacted the National Securities Markets Improvement Act, which rationalized various aspects of federal securities laws. Two years later, under then- Subcommittee Chairman Oxley, he worked with my office to bring the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ Stock Market out of the 18th century and into the 21st by ending government mandated pricing in fractions and moving to decimal pricing. The Common Cents Stock Pricing Act of 1997 provided the impetus to end fractionalized trading which cost investors $3 billion a year. Each year American investors, rather than professional floor traders and NASDAQ market makers, will put that $3 billion to more productive uses, such as saving for retirement and children's education.

Following the transfer of the Committee's securities jurisdiction over to the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Cavicke moved into a management role on the Republican staff. In that capacity, he has been relentlessly fair and has always sought to work to provide procedural due process to all members of the Committee regardless of the issue of the moment. I join in expressing the thanks of the Members of the Committee for his service, and our best wishes.

Madam Speaker, I hereby submit to the Congressional Record the executive summary of the Final Staff Report from the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on the committee's activities in the 110th Congress. A full copy of the Select Committee's Final Staff Report for the 110th Congress can be found at globalwarming.house.gov.

Final Staff Report for the 111th Congress

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2010. This bill would reauthorize the extremely successful Diesel Emission Reduction Act, known as ``DERA'', enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Since its creation the DERA program has provided Federal grants and loans to support more than 3,000 projects to retrofit diesel engines to reduce pollution. The emissions reductions achieved by DERA have resulted in over $600 million in public health benefits so far. The program has provided over $13 in health and economic benefits for every $1 spent on retrofits, and has created or sustained nearly 9,000 jobs since Fiscal Year 2008.

The legislation now before us would reauthorize the DERA program through Fiscal Year 2016 and would make a number of important improvements. Notably it would allow EPA to establish a rebate program, alongside the existing grant and loan program. It would also allow private entities under contract with a non-profit or government to apply directly for funding, instead of limiting the program to government entities. These improvements will help this program to continue to clean our air and protect public health from diesel pollution.

This is a bipartisan bill championed by Senators Carper and Voinovich and deserves our support. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 655, I was unavoidably detained, but had I voted I would have voted ``yes''.

Madam Speaker, Thank you, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Pallone, Representative Burgess, and Ranking Member Barton.

I'd like to thank Senators Bayh and Collins for their leadership on this bill, the Senate companion to H.R. 4689 which I introduced with my friend and cochair of the Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, Representative Chris Smith from New Jersey.

The poet Robert Browning once wrote, ``Grow old with me, the best is yet to be.''

Unfortunately, the ``Golden Years'' can be the worst years for Americans afflicted with Alzheimer's and their families.

We've worked with the Senate to engage in a bipartisan, constructive process with stakeholders to reach legislative language and move this bill forward.

After all, Alzheimer's is an equal-opportunity disease. My father was a milkman, my mother the valedictorian. My father always said it was an honor that my mother married him and that if Alzheimer's was determined by the strength of your brain, ``Your mother would be taking care of me instead.'' He took care of her in our living room in Malden, Massachusetts for 10 years as she suffered from Alzheimer's. I'm thinking of them both today.

Alois Alzheimer first discovered the plaques and tangles in the brain that cause Alzheimer's in 1906--within the very same year that my mother was born.

At the time, doctors believed that dementia in the elderly was a normal part of the aging process that was caused by the hardening of the arteries.

However, Alzheimer's groundbreaking work was done on a patient who was only 51 years old. So Alzheimer reached the conclusion that the condition he had discovered was a kind of ``pre-senile dementia,'' and that the pattern of plaques and tangles he had identified was a rare condition that afflicted only the young.

Years passed, my mother grew up, and researchers did little to study and learn about the plaques and tangles that were forming in her brain.

It wasn't until the mid-1970s that it became clear that the most common form of dementia in older people was caused by the same plaques and tangles that Alzheimer had identified decades earlier.

Unfortunately, the search for the cure had begun too late for my mother who was diagnosed in 1981--75 years after Alzheimer had discovered the disease that lead to her death.

Alzheimer's patients are the mothers and fathers, and sisters and brothers who we recognize even if they don't recognize us; who we remember even if they don't remember us, and who we continue to love and cherish even as their condition worsens.

A few stats: 5.3 million Americans have Alzheimer's; it is the 7th leading cause of death; $172 billion is spent annually for Alzheimer's.

Our challenge is to ensure that we increase not only the lifespan, but also the health span of Americans, so that the 30 bonus years of life we gained in the 20th century--and hopefully will continue to gain in the 21st--are truly better years of life.

The Alzheimer's community has been waiting for help, and trying to maintain hope.

Today the House can take action to help and give hope to Alzheimer's families.

The bill we are considering today will help coordinate Alzheimer's research, care, and services across all Federal agencies.

The United States is one of the only developed nations without a national plan to combat Alzheimer's. For too long, we've been unarmed against this disease.

Through this plan, will be developed: An assessment of all Alzheimer- related Federal efforts; recommendations; annual updates; and a strong advisory committee.

This bill will: Help coordinate the health care and treatment of citizens with Alzheimer's; it will accelerate the development of treatments that would prevent, halt or reverse the course of Alzheimer's by coordinating existing government resources; and it will ensure the inclusion of ethnic and racial populations at higher risk for Alzheimer's and reduce health disparities among people with Alzheimer's.

Thank yous: The Alzheimer's Association--Harry Johns, Rob Egge, Mary Richards, Katie Maslow, Matthew Baumgart; Maria Shriver for all of her great work; The Alzheimer's Foundation of America--Eric Hall, Sue Peschin; Cure Alzheimer's Fund--Tim Armour, Dr. Rudy Tanzi; The National Institute on Aging--Dr. Richard Hodes, Tamara Jones; Keep Memory Alive--Maureen Peckman, George and Trish Vradenburg, Patience O'Connor, Meryl Comer, Jillian Oberfield, Mark Bayer, Kate Bazinsky, Josh Lumbley, Amit Mistry, and Binta Beard from my office; Tim Lynagh from Representative Chris Smith's office; Emily Gibbons, Sarah Despres from the Energy and Commerce Committee Majority Staff; Ryan Long and Clay Alspach from Mr. Barton's staff; J.P. Paluskiewicz from Dr. Burgess's Office; Sarah Kyle and Kevin Kaiser from Senator Bayh's Office.

Thank you to the many hard-working advocates for this disease, and those who are caretakers, bearing many burdens day in and day out.

I once again thank my colleagues for their support--Waxman, Pallone, Burgess, and Barton.

I thank the chair very much, and I thank him for his great work.

The poet Robert Browning once wrote, ``Grow old with me. The best is yet to be.'' Unfortunately, the golden years can be the worst years for Americans afflicted with Alzheimer's and their families. We have worked with the Senate to put together a bipartisan bill that has just passed here in the United States House of Representatives that I have worked on over the last 2 years that will put together an Alzheimer's plan, a battle plan for our country. And why is it important? I will tell you very simply: 4 million Americans have Alzheimer's today. There are going to be 12 million to 15 million baby boomers with Alzheimer's. They will have a spouse who also has the disease or some other family member. Somebody in the family has to take care of that person. So by the time all the baby boomers have retired, there will be about 25 million to 30 million Americans whose lives will revolve around Alzheimer's.

We have to find a cure for it. We have to find a way of giving more help to these heroes, these families.

My father was a milkman. My mother was a valedictorian. My mother got Alzheimer's. My father kept her in the living room. For 13 years, we kept her in our living room. My father always said that it was an honor that my mother had married him, the milkman. He also said that if the strength of your brain determined who got Alzheimer's, he said that he would have it and my mother would be taking care of him.

But this is an equal opportunity disease. It's an epidemic. If we do not find the cure, if we do not find the cure, the budget problems for our country will be so explosive that it will be impossible to ever balance the Federal budget.

We are now spending a fortune on it, and unless we cure it, we will never be able to deal with the catastrophic consequences personally, for those families, and for our country, in general.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me this personal privilege, because I was pulled away as the bill was being considered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the coaching career of Mr. Bill Tighe. Coach Tighe is the oldest active high school head football coach in the country at age 86. He will conclude his 52nd year as a head coach when his Lexington High School squad meets their rival Burlington High School on Thanksgiving morning.

Coach Tighe was a standout three-sport athlete at Ashland High School, and upon graduation he served in the United States Air Force for three years as a P-38 crew chief during World War II. After completing his service to our nation, he attended Boston University where he starred for the Terrier football and baseball teams. Known as a selfless teammate with a tireless work ethic, Bill Tighe, the incredible athlete was destined to be Bill Tighe, the legendary coach.

Madam Speaker, Bill began his remarkable career at Wakefield High School in 1949 as an assistant football coach and was elevated to head coach in 1957. During his 52 years as head football coach at Wakefield High School, Malden High School and Lexington High School, Bill won 9 league championships and amassed an overall record of 268 wins, 232 losses and 13 ties. Bill's commitment to excellence is well known throughout Massachusetts and New England, and he has been inducted into the Wakefield High School, Malden High School, Lexington High School, Boston University, Massachusetts Football Coaches and National Federation of Interscholastic Coaches Association Halls of Fame.

Bill Tighe's success on the football field is surpassed only by the enormous impact he has had on his players' lives off the football field. Coach Tighe taught all the young athletes under his tutelage the importance of sacrifice, discipline and commitment. Coach Tighe also stressed the importance of academic achievement and the value of a strong education. He is credited with helping thousands of young scholar athletes continue their education in college.

Madam Speaker, on Thanksgiving morning Bill Tighe will be surrounded by family, friends, professional colleagues and former student athletes in order to celebrate his legendary coaching career. I join them in thanking Coach Tighe for the amazing contributions he has made to the Towns of Wakefield and Lexington, the City of Malden, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Mr. Roman Totenberg's 100th birthday. Mr. Totenberg is a world-class violinist and a beloved educator. January 1, 2011, will mark the 100th birthday of this gifted musician, whose talents on stage and in the classroom have enriched the lives of many people.

Mr. Totenberg was born in Lodz, Poland. He says he ``accidentally'' started playing the violin when he was a little boy because a neighbor who babysat him played the instrument. By the age of six, he was playing consistently and has practiced the violin everyday since.

By the age of 11, Mr. Totenberg was playing professionally. He debuted as a soloist for the Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra.

Since his debut at such a young age, Mr. Totenberg was considered a prodigy. In 1931 he was awarded the Mendelssohn prize, a distinguished international award given to promising young musicians. He played with the Boston Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Berlin Philharmonic, the London Philharmonic and countless other world-class orchestras.

Madam Speaker, as a young man at the age of 24, Mr. Totenberg performed at the White House for President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

He was married to the late Melanie Totenberg for over fifty years. Together they had one daughter, Nina Totenberg. Nina is a respected and well-known journalist.

Mr. Totenberg joined Boston University as a Professor in the string department in 1961 and remains a professor there to this day. He was the head of Boston University's string department from 1965-1978. From 1978-1985 he was director of The Longy School of Music in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, for all that he has accomplished and all that he has contributed, I would like to honor the 100th birthday of Mr. Roman Totenberg.

Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I had the good fortune to meet Joey O'Donnell. Joey was the son of my close friend from Malden, Massachusetts, Joe O'Donnell. Joey was a brave and resilient child despite suffering from Cystic Fibrosis, CF, a cruel disorder that robs the body of the ability to breathe normally and leads to other debilitating health problems. As a result, CF typically cuts lives tragically short.

In 1986, Joey passed away when he was only 12-years-old. Because of Joey and the tireless work of his father Joe and mother Kathy, who encouraged me to intensify Government efforts to combat CF, I decided to found the Bi-Partisan Cystic Fibrosis Caucus in Congress. Our goal has been to raise awareness and build momentum towards a cure for CF, ALS, Parkinson's, Huntington's and other rare disorders.

I was pleased to partner with my colleague, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), in passing the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act and sending it to the White House to be signed into law. This bill will open up participation in clinical trials for diseases like CF to low- income and other patients. The bill excludes from the income caps set for the Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid programs the compensation that these patients receive for their participation in clinical trials for rare diseases The legislation will ensure that this modest compensation will not affect eligibility for these programs.

Patients will no longer have to choose between their health benefits and the promise of a clinical trial. If we want to increase the chances of finding cures to diseases like Cystic Fibrosis, we also need to increase participation in these trials. The Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act gives low-income individuals a higher probability to help advance medical science, and helps save lives in the process, hopefully including their own.

The bill we passed yesterday and the law that President Obama will enact with his signature is really ``Joey O'Donnell's Law''. He inspired it, and his name will forever be associated with it. Joey died before his time, but his impact will be timeless. I salute my friend Joe O'Donnell and his wife Kathy and send my best wishes to the entire O'Donnell family. I also want to recognize my friend Bob Coughlin, President and CEO of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, for his tireless work to help find cures to CF and other rare disorders. This new law will offer hope to families around the country and bring us closer to the day when we consign these devastating diseases to the history books.