Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6432. Today we consider important public health legislation that, in the best tradition of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has strong bipartisan support as well as backing from industry, consumer, and stakeholder groups.

I note that this bill has three titles--each representing different bills considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The first title is the ``Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008''. This title reauthorizes a successful user fee program that has allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to safely and efficiently review animal drugs. This part of the bill improves the existing program by increasing fee revenues, providing greater transparency, and setting specific timeframes by which data must be submitted to the FDA.

This title of the bill also contains provisions related to the issue of antimicrobial resistance. The Committee worked closely with Members from both sides of the aisle, as well as industry and consumer groups, to ensure that the FDA has the necessary information to examine safety concerns related to the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals. I commend Representatives Matheson, Waxman, Pallone, Deal, and Barton for reaching agreement on this important public health concern.

The next title is the ``Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2008'' (AGDUFA). This program is similar in design to the ADUFA program, but with a specific focus on expediting the review of applications for new generic animal drugs.

A key component of both ADUFA and AGDUFA is additional resources for FDA to protect the public health. The lack of resources for the FDA has been a major focus of the Committee. I intend to address this issue more broadly in legislation being drafted with Representatives Barton, Deal, Pallone, Shimkus, Stupak, and others, that will significantly improve and enhance our food and drug safety system.

The third and final title makes two technical corrections to public law 110-85, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. The first correction addresses an implementation problem related to the clinical trials results and registry database, which was expanded in that public law. The second correction clarifies that the FDA should review and approve generic drug applications separate and apart from citizen petitions pertaining to that application.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and I thank the Members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for working together to reach agreement on legislation critical to protecting the public health.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2851, ``Michelle's Law.'' This legislation protects students that are covered under their parents' health plan from losing their health insurance if they require a medically necessary leave of absence from school.

The impetus for this legislation--and the namesake for this bill--is a young woman named Michelle Morse. She was a full-time college student at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire who was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2003. Her doctors recommended that she cut back her college course load while undergoing chemotherapy treatment. She found, however, that if she cut back her classroom hours, she would lose her health insurance because she would no longer qualify as a dependent on her parents' health insurance plan.

She could not afford other coverage options, and she was forced to remain in school as a full-time student while undergoing fourteen rounds of chemotherapy. In 2005, she succumbed to her illness. Her mother has since lobbied for laws that would extend the definition of dependents to allow college students needing medical leaves of absence from classwork to retain health insurance coverage on their parents' policies.

I am pleased that this bill has bipartisan support. I thank Ranking Members Barton and Deal for their work as well as the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor. Special acknowledgment should also go to Congressman Hodes of New Hampshire, who has been a champion for this bill from the start.

Michelle's Law would make a small improvement in access to health insurance for individuals who find themselves in the precarious position of being at risk of losing their insurance because they are sick. We clearly have a long way to go to eliminate the growing problem of the uninsured and under insured, but this is a small step in that direction.

I am pleased to support this legislation and look forward to working with my colleagues to move it to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1108) to protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I want to place the legislation we are about to consider in its proper historical context.

Fifty-one years ago, the Surgeon General first stated that tobacco smoking was linked to cancer.

Forty-three years ago, in 1965, tobacco products were for the first time required to carry labels warning of the health hazards to consumers who used them.

Fourteen years ago, the chief executives of the tobacco companies were summoned to appear before the Committee on Energy and Commerce to answer questions about their knowledge of the dangers to human health caused by tobacco and their reluctance or refusal to disclose what they knew.

Ten years ago, the tobacco companies entered into a master settlement with the attorneys general of the States, under which they would pay out billions of dollars to address the costs of smoking, amongst other purposes.

Today, the House will consider H.R. 1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This landmark legislation will, for the first time, grant the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products and to protect consumers on this particular, difficult matter.

It is hard to believe that 51 years after we first became aware of the harmful effects of smoking--and three years after a United Nations tobacco control treaty was enacted--the U.S. government has been unable to take the steps necessary to stem the tide of smoking. With this legislation, we can change that.

Cigarette smoking accounts for about one in five deaths annually, or about 435,000 deaths each year. Each day, more than 4,000 young Americans try a cigarette for the first time, and each day 1,000 of these become addicted to tobacco. One in every three of these smokers will die prematurely.

With this legislation, we will place sharp and sorely needed limits on access to tobacco products and on tobacco advertising and marketing.

Public health organizations have fought for this legislation for 20 years, and I want to commend in particular the Campaign for Tobacco- Free Kids, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and other of our colleagues in particular, Representatives Waxman, Davis and Pallone, who deserve great credit for their diligence and persistence in bringing this legislation to the point where it is.

Passage of H.R. 1108 will stand as an historic achievement. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to vote for the health of America's children and to vote for the health of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my dear and valued friend from West Virginia, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, 1 minute for the purposes of a colloquy.

My good friend from West Virginia is correct. The FDA is required in the legislation, to the extent feasible, to enter into contracts with Indian tribes for the inspection of tobacco retailers located on Indian lands.

I thank my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for the purpose of responding to my beloved friend, the minority leader.

This legislation is on the floor because people are killing themselves by smoking these evil cigarettes. The distinguished gentleman, the minority leader, is going to be amongst the next to die. I am trying to save him, as the rest of us are, because he is committing suicide every time he puffs on one of those things.

I didn't yield to the gentleman.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2008.

Hon. John Dingell,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Dingell: This is to advise you that, as a

result of your working with us to make appropriate revisions

to provisions in H.R. 1108, the ``Family Smoking Prevention

and Tobacco Control Act,'' that fall within the rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able

to agree to discharging our committee from further

consideration of the bill in order that it may proceed

without delay to the House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the

understanding that by foregoing further consideration of H.R.

1108 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over

subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. We

also reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving

this important legislation, and request your support if such

a request is made.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request,

and for the cooperative relationship between our two

committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4040) to establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this motion be extended by 10 minutes on each side.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I bring before the House a strong bipartisan bill that will protect the American public from unsafe consumer products. I have some kudos for my colleagues. I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, my dear friend, Mr. Rush, for his outstanding leadership in the handling of this legislation. I also want to praise my dear friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton, and all of the House conferees who served so well in working out a difficult bill. Working with them has been a privilege and a pleasure.

The House passed H.R. 4040 without a dissenting vote in December of last year, and the House followed with its amendment in March of this year. The resulting conference report represents the most significant overhaul of U.S. consumer product safety laws since the creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission some 40 years ago under the sponsorship of myself and my dear friend from California, John Moss.

Under H.R. 4040, the CPSC will receive substantial funding and staff increases, greater laboratory and computer resources, and a stronger statutory mandate going forward. Industry-sponsored travel by CPSC commissioners and staff will be banned. The presence of lead and dangerous phthalates in toys and other products of children up to age 12 will be banned.

CPSC will be required to establish a publicly accessible data base to help consumers report and learn about deaths and serious injuries caused by consumer products. Toys and other children's products will be subject to premarket testing by certified laboratories.

The conference agreement also strengthens protections against the import and the export of dangerous products and enhances the tools for removing recalled products from store shelves.

To deter wrongdoing, it takes a number of important steps. It increases the

civil and criminal penalties to be sought by CPSC. It authorizes injunctive enforcement of Federal law by State attorneys general. It preserves State common law remedies and California's Proposition 65. It provides important protections for private sector whistleblowers.

I want to conclude by pointing out that this is a bipartisan bill and that it was not only the work of my Republican colleagues, but also my Democratic colleagues. I also want to point out that there was splendid work done by my good friend, Mr. Barton, in his leadership in this matter.

The Republican staff and the Democratic staff worked countless hours and did superb work. Brian McCullough, Will Carty and Shannon Weinberg on the Republican side; and the Democratic staff, Valerie Baron, Andrew Woelfling, Christian Fjeld and Judy Bailey did extraordinary work.

In particular, I want to commend my dear personal friend, Consuela Washington, for leading the staff in such a splendid fashion. From the financial markets to the store shelves, she has been working on legislation to protect consumers for nearly 29 years.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I am grateful for the extraordinary legislation our combined efforts have produced, of which this body and this Nation can indeed be proud. I urge the adoption of the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome back our good friend and colleague the Reverend Rush from Illinois, and I yield to him, the author of this legislation, the chairman of the subcommittee, 5 minutes in support of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns). He was one of an outstanding group of conferees, as was Mr. Barton and Mr. Whitfield. They deserve the thanks of this body; as also was Mr. Rush, Ms. DeGette, and Ms. Schakowsky.

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) who was one of the able conferees who has brought us a fine bipartisan bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, that is my understanding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi, 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield at this time 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado, who had so much to do with the success of the conference, my dear friend, Ms. Diana DeGette.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who was so valuable and so helpful in achieving this purpose today, 3 minutes.

I yield the distinguished gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am ready to close and to say appropriate remarks for my good friend from Texas for his fine work and that of all of the other members who have worked so hard on this. So I will close at the proper time.

I yield myself the balance of the time for the purposes of closing.

I want to make a little observation about my friend from Texas. He's too kind to me and not kind enough to himself. He and I have the privilege of leading the Commerce Committee. It's a great committee composed of great Members, and we are proud, indeed, of them all, and we have an extraordinary staff, and they deserve the gratitude of this body for the fine work they did.

My good friend from Texas and I have had some fine fights, but we have over the years become great friends, as well we should be. And he has earned not just my respect and affection but that of all of his colleagues on the committee and in this body because he's a fine, decent and wonderful human being.

And I know that there were difficult times for him, as there were for all of our other conferees, Mr. Rush, Mr. Waxman, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Stearns, and Mr. Whitfield, and I know on one occasion it looked like this thing was going down the tube. But Ms. DeGette and my good friend from Texas (Mr. Barton) got together, and they pulled it together and made it work. And we owe them thanks for that. It's great public service.

And we also do for Mr. Waxman, because at a very difficult time, the question of preemption and the level of phthalates was before us, and in a very quick and gentlemanly way, Mr. Barton and Mr. Waxman worked that issue out. We owe them thanks for that.

We have given the House a good bill. It's a bill that's going to protect people. It's a bill that's going to not just protect people but kids, and I think we have to give a nod here to Mr. Serrano, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because without proper funding this legislation is not going to work, and people are going to keep getting killed by shoddy products,

most of which are imports. And we understand that under Mr. Serrano's leadership, there will be $100 million in the appropriation next year for dealing with the problems of this agency.

Again, Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It shows how the House can work together and how the process, when properly used, leads to good legislation.

My good friend, Mr. Barton, is an institutionalist, and we're very proud of that. And I pride myself that I, in some small way, am one of those, too. But this is the way the place should work. For hundreds of years, wise men and women have left us the way that this place can and should work, and it's my hope that as we go forward in this Congress and in following Congresses that we will again be able to work as we did on this matter, not just on the Commerce Committee but on all others.

Commerce is very proud of its traditions and its history. We're also very proud of our other sister committees and of the good work that they do, and it is a real privilege for me to commend all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and say to them well done for the great work that you have done. All of us have reason to be proud, and all of us have reason to be grateful, and all of us have strong reason to be delighted to see back our old friend Reverend Rush, who started this whole thing out.

And so, Madam Speaker, to my colleagues I say, well done, let's vote this legislation through. It's a great piece of legislation, and it will protect and it will save lives, health, and the security of our people.

Madam Speaker, I want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Frank, for his cooperation in working out issues related to the bill's definition of ``elevated intervention blood lead level''. I also commend him for his help in maintaining the relationship between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in carrying out the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, as well as preserving the respective roles of the health-based agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in making recommendations regarding the environmental intervention blood lead level, and the EPA in establishing that level under section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

I have strong concerns, however, about a provision that was not in the original bill and was added during the Financial Services committee process. This provision would only provide the benefits of the new protective blood lead level recommended by the CDC in the bill to children, including children in public housing

agencies, in those instances in which the Federal Government pays for the cost of compliance. I doubt whether the Federal resources budgeted or appropriated will ever be adequate to protect all children who need to be protected from exposure to lead-based paint at the recommended CDC level. All children should have the same level of health protection from lead hazards. This level of health protection should not depend on where a child lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the anniversary of Michigan Radio for 60 years of service to the state of Michigan and the citizens of Southeast Michigan.

Michigan Radio, first known as WUOM, signed on July 5, 1948 with the first broadcast coming from the Angell Hall Observatory on the campus of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The station's studios have been in Ann Arbor ever since. As a multi-decade affiliate of National Public Radio, Michigan Radio strives to inform listeners throughout Michigan of the important issues taking place in the world around them. Michigan Radio also broadcasts informative programs like The Environment Report, and its national award-winning news documentaries. There is also no better source for news in Michigan than WUOM.

Michigan Radio's signal reaches the southern half of Michigan. With about 400,000 listeners per week, it has the largest audience of any public radio station in the state. Throughout its tenure, Michigan Radio has provided citizens of Michigan with detailed accounts of world and local news. This informative public radio news service has been essential to the Southeast Michigan community for the past 60 years. I fully believe that Michigan Radio will continue to serve the state of Michigan for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in commending Michigan Radio for 60 years of dedicated service to the people of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, today we protect Medicare's future. The rule addresses a provision that was slipped into the Republican Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, in the dark of night. It was not in the version of the bill that was passed by the House or by the Senate. It is yet another example of Republican efforts to choke off Medicare-- an automatic ``trigger'' that requires cuts to the program if general revenues contribute more than 45 percent of Medicare's revenues.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have long tried to end Medicare, and failing that, to let it wither slowly on the vine. Newt Gingrich said as much in the 1990s, when he was Speaker of the House.

As required by the MMA provision, the President sent a bill to Congress in February with his proposal to meet the trigger requirements. His bill simply shifted costs to patients, and made no improvements to Medicare; a good example of why this ``trigger'' doesn't work.

Democrats know how to manage Medicare--my father wrote the original bill creating it, and we have been fighting to preserve, improve, and protect the program for nearly 50 years. We do not need gimmicks like an arbitrary ``trigger'' to do so.

Medicare has protected seniors, improved their health, and helped lift people out of poverty. We must ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to their doctor of choice, high-quality hospital care, and prescription drug services.

I support this rule; and I urge my colleagues to eliminate the ``trigger'' requirements for the remainder of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, which will give much needed assistance to homeowners, provide increased funding for affordable housing, make important reforms to FHA, and restore confidence in the credit markets. This is the most important housing legislation to pass through the Congress in decades, and it will have an effect on millions of Americans. However, there is one specific provision included in this legislation that will have a particularly important effect in Michigan's 15th Congressional District.

Section 2801 of H.R. 3221 is designed to clarify congressional intent regarding certain properties that entered the HUD property disposition process prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act but where the initial proposed disposition was delayed. An example of one such project is Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti, Michigan. While I believe that this particular project is already subject to the grandfathering provision of the DRA, Section 2801 clarifies that such properties should be considered ``pre-DRA'' properties, and that HUD should proceed with its prior disposition contracts as to those properties. This clarification was requested by HUD and, in drafting this provision, we were assisted by HUD staff and were assured that this language was the clarification the agency needed to proceed with the 2004 contract as to Parkview Apartments.

I would like to thank Chairman Frank and his staff for all of the hard work they have put into this legislation. In particular I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the work they have done on Section 2801, which will help to ensure that Parkview Apartments is retained as an affordable housing resource in Washtenaw County.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor our former colleague, and my good friend, the Honorable Lionel Van Deerlin of California. He passed away on May 17th in his San Diego home at the age of 93.

Everybody referred to him as ``Van.'' He served in this House from 1963 until 1981, and was a friend and colleague of mine on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Throughout his career he maintained a marvelous wit and a generous spirit. He was a warm and gentle man.

After his defeat, Van went back to the newspaper business he loved, writing columns for the San Diego Tribune and then the Union-Tribune. In one recent column he decried the bitter partisanship of today's Congress, saying ``Twenty-five years ago in Congress you not only trusted the opposing party, you enjoyed their company. Today, they hardly even speak.''

During his last 4 years of service, from 1976-80, he was the Chairman of the Communications Subcommittee. It was a tumultuous time to preside over that important panel. The Justice Department had filed an antitrust suit against the then-integrated AT&T, and sought to divest the company of its manufacturing subsidiary, known then as Western Electric. In response to the Justice Department's lawsuit, AT&T's supporters in the Congress introduced the ``Consumer Communications Reform Act,'' which would have ratified AT&T's status as a monopoly.

All of this fell into Van's lap when he became Chairman of the Subcommittee. At the time, competition in communications was in its infancy. Competitive suppliers of telephone equipment were beginning to spring up. But competition in long distance was still a novelty. Van knew that if the Congress ratified AT&T's monopoly, consumers would have lost an opportunity to shop around and obtain equipment and service for less. So he came up with a plan to forestall the legislation (which was extremely popular) to educate his Subcommittee while giving the competitors an opportunity to gain a foothold in the marketplace.

Van announced his intention to draft a ``basement to attic'' re-write of the Communications Act of 1934. And he proceeded to do just that. In 1978 he introduced H.R. 13015, the ``Communications Act of 1978.'' Although the bill was never approved by the Subcommittee, he compiled an impressive hearing record and began to build the consensus that competition in communications was good for consumers.

The following year he introduced H.R. 3333, another attempt to re- write the Communications Act. Again, the bill was not reported by the Subcommittee; however Van's untiring efforts expanded both the record and the emerging consensus. And in 1980, the year of his defeat, he introduced H.R. 6121, which was approved by both the Subcommittee and the full Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

In 1980, Van was defeated for re-election. In his concession speech he again demonstrated his wry wit and sage perspective, saying ``Having been elected by the people in this district for nine consecutive elections, it would hardly be appropriate to say that they've taken leave of their senses this time.'' And so ended the career of a remarkable public servant.

But the efforts that he put in motion did not end there. Building on the hearing record that Van compiled, and the growing consensus that competition should govern the delivery of communications products and services, Congress continued its effort to update the Communications Act of 1934. In 1982 those efforts were interrupted by the Justice Department's announcement that it had settled the AT&T litigation. That settlement resulted in the 1984 divestiture of the Bell Operating Companies, and established the industry structure that persisted for the next 15 years.

In 1993 the House revived its efforts to update the 1934 Act, and in June of 1994, by a vote of 423-5, passed H.R. 3626. While the Senate did not complete action on its bill, efforts to update the law commenced anew in 1995. The result was the enactment of the landmark ``Telecommunications Act of 1996'' the following year.

Those of us who had been involved in these efforts from the beginning recognized that we were building upon the foundation that Van had laid back in 1977 and 1978. He was the visionary that realized that the days of AT&T's monopoly had to end, and he was the one who began the effort to build a consensus in favor of competition.

Early in 1996, the White House contacted my office to see who should be invited to attend the signing ceremony for the ``Telecommunications Act of 1996.'' I suggested that they invite Lionel Van Deerlin, the man who got the ball rolling nearly 20 years before. And so in February, 1996, I entered the Library of Congress to witness the President signing this important new law. And there was Van, my old friend and colleague; smiling as always.

That was the last time that I saw Van. After his defeat I missed his cool-headed leadership and ready wit. It was great to see him that day, and I was glad that he lived to see his efforts come to fruition with the enactment of the new statute. This body has lost a good and decent colleague, who made valuable contributions that extended well beyond his years of service. And I have lost an old and dear friend, whom I will miss. We were better for his presence.

I am inserting for the Record the eulogy of former Representative Lynn Schenk.

The following is the text of the Eulogy for Rep. Lionel Van Deerlin, delivered by his friend of 30 years, the Hon. Lynn Schenk, on the occasion of his Memorial and Celebration of Life at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, San Diego, California, at noon, on Saturday, June 14, 2008:

I have been given the high honor of speaking to you today

about a most extraordinary man--Lionel Van Deerlin--our dear

Van. I thank the Van Deerlin family, his children and

grandchildren for this special privilege.

Van's ``life journey'' was marked by so much accomplishment

that it would take hours to recount--I will do my best to

touch on the highlights.

This man, with a giant heart, who looked at life through

the softening lens of humor, has brought us together today,

but he would not want us to mourn him. Instead he would

want us to celebrate his life and enjoy one another's

company.

As I share a few reflections, it is OK if you want to tune

me out and remember your own ``Van'' stories--there are so

many!

On May 17, the Nation lost a great American, a family lost

a cherished patriarch and we lost a dear friend.

Van died peacefully--just as he lived every day of his long

and celebrated life--surrounded by family and friends. And

just like Van, he closed his eyes for the last time only

after finishing his column for the SD union tribune.

Van was born in L.A., a true native son of California. He

went to public school in Oceanside and graduated from USC,

where he was editor of the daily Trojan, something for which

this Bruin long ago forgave him.

He began his civilian career in journalism in Baltimore and

Minneapolis, where he met the love of his long life, Mary Jo.

They eloped to a marriage that lasted 67 years ending only

with Mary Jo's passing last October.

During WWII, Van served in the Army where he was on the

staff of ``Stars and Stripes''. After the war, the Van

Deerlins returned to San Diego to raise their family, Jimmy,

John, Victoria, Elizabeth, Susan and Jeff.

Van joined the SD Sun and became the city editor of the SD

Journal, a paper founded by Clint McKinnon, the first

Democrat to be elected to Congress from SD.

Van loved the job, but the siren call of TV was too much to

resist.

He used to tell a hysterical story about those early TV

days. The TV studio was in Tijuana. Then, as now, economics

drove the medium. So on weekends the inside studio was used

to tape commercials while the live news was broadcast from a

parking lot outside. A picture backdrop of sunny SD was used

to hide the cars and trucks in the lot.

One evening it began to rain, drops were rolling off Van's

forehead and the backdrop swayed in the wind, while the lead

cameraman was in a fistfight with the director! Undeterred

Van carried on like the trooper he was, that is, until a wet

cat threatened to jump into his lap!

The versatile newsman credited his exposure on TV for his

first election victory, becoming the second Democrat from the

then very Republican SD area to be elected to the U.S.

Congress.

Van was reelected 9 times. By the time I met Van, more than

30 years ago, he was a high ranking member of the majority

party. I was in awe, but with his ready smile and corny jokes

he immediately put me at ease. I am certain many of you here

had similar first meeting with this ``king of the one

liners!''

I have many memories of Van and Mary Jo, but one of the

earliest is also one of my fondest. In the mid 70's as a

White House fellow, I had access to the presidential box at

the Kennedy Center, but only on a last minute basis when no

one really important wanted it. One late afternoon I got the

word the box was mine for that evening. I don't know what

possessed me to call Congressman Van Deerlin to invite him

and his wife, because surely he would decline.

But he didn't! He accepted with glee.

As we stepped from the anteroom into the box he was more

excited than I!!

As you would expect, all heads turned to see who was

occupying the presidential box. Not wanting to disappoint,

Van proceeded to the rail and in his best royal nod and wave

acknowledged the crowd! With his patrician looks, they all

must have thought he was a visiting king or at least a

prince!

Van served on the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce and chaired its communications subcommittee.

According to his friend and colleague, Cong. John Dingell, it

was a tumultuous time, but Van maintained his marvelous wit

and generous spirit.

Competition in communications, especially long distance,

was in its birthing stages. The Justice Dept, ATT and

potential competitors were in heated battle.

All this fell into Van's lap. He announced his intention to

draft a ``basement to attic'' rewrite of the communications

act of 1934. And that he did, compiling a comprehensive

record to show that competiion in Communications was good for

consumers.

It was Van's work that provided the foundation for the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. Again, according to Cong.

Dingell, Van was the visionary who realized that ATT's

monopoly had to end.

The committee was renamed Energy and Commerce and John

Dingell is the long time chairman. John Dingell sends his

deepest sympathies to Van's family.

He said into the Congressional Record ``this body has lost

a good and decent colleague who made valuable contributions

that extended well beyond his years of service. And I have

lost an old and dear friend, whom I will miss. We were better

for his presence.''

I had the privilege of sitting in the Van Deerlin seat for

a brief period, and on his subcommittee.

His cool headed leadership and ready wit were much

remembered. One day during a contentious hearing, the doors

opened and in slipped two gentlemen. I recognized Van

immediately and slipped a note to the subcommittee chairman,

Ed Markey who along with Al Gore, was a protege of Van's. Ed

halted the proceedings to introduce Van and the room

literally erupted in a standing ovation.

He tried to stop this spontaneous outpouring so he could

introduce the gentleman with him who he also wanted

acknowledged in this manner, former Republican Congressman

Bob Wilson!

How utterly Van!

While there was never a doubt that Van was a staunch

democrat, he was a gentleman who treated friend and foe, ally

and opponent with dignity and respect. His campaigns were

dignified and there was decency in everything he did. As his

son Jeff said, ``Van was a sweet and decent man''.

The contentious and vitriolic political scene today was a

source of consternation for him. Not too long ago, Van

famously said, ``twenty five years ago in Congress you not

only trusted the opposing party, you enjoyed their company.

Today, they hardly speak''!

Van accomplished so much for San Diego during his years in

Congress. He was simply one of the most productive Members

ever to represent this area. He authored the appropriation to

pay for a second border crossing at Otay Mesa, this, before

there was wide spread appreciation of the importance of cross

border cooperation.

He used his position in the majority to help his SD

colleague in the minority, Republican Bob Wilson, in Bob's

signal support for the Navy and Marines, including funding

for the Naval Hospital in Balboa Park.

Van and Bob worked together to promote work for SD's

shipbuilding and repair industry.

And Van fought long and hard for the appropriation for the

Veteran's Hospital in La Jolla. His insight and involvement

extended to where it should be located and by whom it should

be designed.

In fact, if the right people are listening, I suggest that

the VA Hospital be named for Lionel Van Deerlin!!

During his 18 years in the House, Van's accomplishments

were so far reaching that we still benefit from them today

both here in SD and nationally.

He was a nature lover and a sportsman with only binoculars

in his holster.

Because of his love of nature, he was an ardent

environmentalist. Van, ahead of his time, successfully pushed

for revisions to Federal law allowing California to set

tougher emission standards than the rest of the Nation.

In 1975, Van politely, but firmly, shall we say

``encouraged'' the Navy to restore Imperial Beach's vanishing

sand, which it did.

With an assist from the young Congressman Al Gore sitting

next to him, Van helped create C-Span, which had been

resisted for years by his colleagues.

Van was a ``Carrie Nation'' about congressional ethics! He

voluntarily disclosed his and Mary Jo's personal finances--a

first in Congress, and sought the expulsion of Adam Clayton

Powell from Congress for ethical violations. That took

courage and character, something Van had in abundance!!

The face of Public Broadcasting was sculpted by Van. The

Corporation for Public Broadcasting might not--no, would

not--exist today were it not for Lionel Van Deerlin!

But it wasn't all work and no play during those DC days--

for example, Van moonlighted as the manager for his staff's

softball team. He selectively challenged the only Capitol

Hill team to have never won a game--Congressman Charlie

Wilson's team. Suffice it to say that Mr. Wilson's team

finished the season with one victory.

Undaunted, Van cannily next challenged the diplomats and

staff of the Irish Embassy, knowing full well that softball

is not played in Ireland. (Pause) the Embassy of Ireland

finished the season undefeated one-zip!

Even in electoral defeat, Van maintained his humor and

perspective. After losing his reelection bid in 1980, he said

``having been elected by the people in this district for nine

consecutive elections, it would hardly be appropriate to say

that they've taken leave of their senses this time''.

There are so many stories from the rich, full and well

lived life of Lionel Van Deerlin. Each of you I'm certain

could fill hours telling Van stories.

John Martin, the former ABC News correspondent, talks about

how Van's role in getting him an overseas assignment was ``a

turning point in his life.''

John says, ``Van was gracious, smart, looking out for the

little guy and funny, just the combination we need in public

life''.

The person Van considered his fourth son, Rudy Murillo,

Van's dear friend Paul Peterson and my husband, Hugh Friedman

would, for the past decade, meet regularly for lunch. Van

filled the table with his joyful presence, as he surgically

dissected the events and issues of the day with his wit and

insight. For Paul, Rudy and Hugh, that fourth chair will be

hugely empty now.

His colleagues in the media will miss him enormously.

As we know, after Congress, Van returned to his first

professional love, journalism. For a couple of generations of

SD news people, Van was both a matchless source and quite

often a friend in need. He relished doing his column, he

loved journalism and journalists.

The Washington Post editorialized after Van's death ``a

happy warrior as both a Congressman and columnist, his column

reflected the man. A lively, engaging writer, he left no

doubt about his liberal views, but he relied on his quick

wit, a firm grasp of the issues and a lifetime's store of

anecdotes to provoke and persuade.''

So true.

Van was also an educator, teaching communications classes

at SDSU (where there is

a chair named for him). His students felt blessed to have had

the benefit of his wisdom.

He was a mentor to so many younger Democrats, cheering us

up when we lost, and cheering us on when we won. We will

always cherish his concern, his generosity and his support.

Personally, I will always remember his standing by my side,

wearing his biggest grin, as I announced my own candidacy for

Congress.

Although he lived life long and full in nearly 94 years,

those of us who knew him are still greedy for more of this

remarkable man and his life partner, Mary Jo.

But we must be content with the legacy he has bequeathed to

us. By his work in Congress, through his leadership, his

teaching and writing, and by the example of how he lived his

life, he has taught us many lessons. He taught us the

importance of giving of yourself to your fellow citizens, he

taught us that working together we can accomplish much, he

taught us to delight in shared achievement and not be

concerned with who gets credit. He showed us how to be

upbeat, positive, and happy. He taught us that politics can

be fun, that losing is not failure, an opponent is not the

enemy.

He taught us to treat everyone respectfully. He taught us

about dignity and decency, and the sweetness of life as it

should be lived, with enthusiasm, zest and verve--filling

every moment to the fullest. He taught us to believe as he

did, in the innate goodness of humanity.

He taught us to be loyal to our friends and to love our

families as he so unconditionally loved his.

Lionel Van Deerlin--a man of character, integrity, and

humility. Van--classy, enthusiastic, fun.

We should celebrate him the way he would want us to, with

happiness and joy in having had this sweet and decent man in

our lives.

Yes, we will miss the twinkle in his eyes, his witty

tweaking of the high and mighty. Yes, we will miss his

friendship and his presence, but we can best honor this

consummate man of good will by embracing the lessons he

taught us.

He left us with an ineffable sense of optimism and hope, so

let there be no sadness, because surely he is with his

beloved Mary Jo whistling an old tune and telling her a corny

joke.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend Ed Nuernberg on the occasion of his retirement from BASF after over 30 years of distinguished service. He is an honorable, decent, and hard working man and I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. Nuernberg was born in Delevan, Wisconsin, but moved frequently throughout his life. He earned a bachelor degree in science and chemical engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1972. It was there that he met his wonderful wife Patty. After he graduated he began his career at Rohm and Haas Corporation, where he worked as a process engineer for 2 years.

As his career progressed, Mr. Nuernberg continually exhibited his intelligence and drive as he contributed to the advancement of numerous aspects of the chemical industry. Mr. Neurnberg began his career at BASF in 1974 as an Operating Technical Supervisor in BASF's Geismar, Louisiana plant. During his second year, he became Superintendent of the Caustic Plant, and soon after he became Superintendent of the Propylene Oxide Plant in Wyandotte, Michigan. Following this post, he temporarily left Downriver to share his skills in a variety of capacities and locations. However, in 1998, Mr. Nuernberg finally returned to Wyandotte where he was named General Manager.

In addition to his fine work at BASF, Mr. Nuernberg joined many community organizations throughout his time in the Downriver area. He has provided great leadership as a board member of the Michigan Chemistry Council, Southern Wayne County Chamber of Commerce, International Wildlife Refuge Alliance, and Southeast Michigan Sustainable Business Forum and as president of the Wyandotte Community Advisory Panel and as a member of the Local Emergency Planning Committee.

I am happy to know that he will be able to continue his work with BASF, as well as his lifelong conservation efforts, as he enjoys managing the beautiful facilities and habitat on Fighting Island. Because of Mr. Nuernberg's efforts to restore the island's habitat, fish, migratory birds and people on both sides of the Detroit River have benefited tremendously.

As Mr. Nuernberg enters his retirement years, I would like to extend my best wishes for a relaxing and enjoyable future with Patty and the rest of his family and friends and thank him for all of his hard work and commitment to BASF Corporation and the Downriver community.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask that my colleagues join me in commending Ed Nuernberg for leadership in both his corporation and in his community, as we celebrate his 34 years of dedication.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Madam Speaker, I also yield 15 minutes of my time to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Madam Speaker, once again, the House has before it an irresponsible, flint-hearted veto sent by the White House, which has participated in no way in bringing us to the point where we are today.

The legislation before us is critical to ensuring access to high- quality physician services for Medicare beneficiaries. If we fail to override this veto, physicians will face a 10 percent pay cut, which will jeopardize access to care for seniors and for the disabled. If we fail to override this veto, low-income beneficiaries will lose out on additional protections and benefits in the traditional Medicare programs, such as coverage for more preventive benefits.

Finally, if we fail to override this veto, we will miss out on an opportunity to begin addressing the most egregious abuses made by the private health plans operating under Medicare. Private Fee-for-Service (PFFS) plans, one type of Medicare Advantage plan, do not have to sign providers to be a part of their networks. The result of this is that beneficiaries have no idea which physicians accept payments for their plans. And if the physician does not accept payment, the physician and the beneficiary are left holding the bag. These plans create tremendous uncertainty, confusion and hardships for all concerned, beneficiaries and providers.

I urge Members to vote to override the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation before us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend, Mr. Pallone, chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My colleagues on the other side talk about Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage gets somewhere between 11 and 30 percent more than they are supposed to get and more than regular Medicare gets. That's absolutely wrong. If we support this veto, we would continue that outrage. This is something that needs to be corrected.

Madam Speaker, I am now happy to yield to my dear friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mrs. Capps, 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield at this time to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I have one speaker remaining who will close for us.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2607, the ``DTV Transition Assistance Act''. This measure will help facilitate the transition to digital television (DTV), a technology which holds great promise for this country. It will allow for more broadcast programming with better sound and picture quality. It will provide new opportunities for wireless technologies on analog spectrum being vacated by broadcasters. And most importantly, some of this vacated analog spectrum will be used to create a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for first responders.

With the February 17, 2009, DTV transition date slightly more than 7 months away, however, we must ensure that all Americans are prepared for it. S. 2607 takes a step in the right direction by solving some outstanding problems relating to the transition in a thoughtful manner.

Not all television stations will make the transition to digital broadcasting on February 17th. Low-power and translator stations, many of which serve rural, minority, and other underserved communities, do not have a set date by which they must switch to digital. The ``Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005'' established a grant program to help often financially constrained low-power television stations acquire the equipment needed to make the transition to digital. S. 2607 makes those funds available beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2009, rather than in FY 2011, as provided by current law. It also extends the availability of funding through FY 2012. These changes will help facilitate the DTV transition for low-power stations so they can offer consumers th benefits of digital broadcasting.

The 2005 Act also established a $10 million program to help translator stations continue providing an analog broadcast signal after February 17, 2009. Such stations are eligible for grants of up to $1,000 toward the purchase of digital-to-analog conversion equipment. That grant program is currently undersubscribed and includes more than enough money to accommodate every translator station. Accordingly, S. 2607 gives the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information the flexibility to reallocate unspent money from the program to DTV consumer education.

Consumer education is the key to a successful DTV transition, and its importance cannot be overemphasized. Television is the predominant medium through which Americans receive critical public safety information and is one of the chief conduits for news and political discourse, as well as entertainment. Therefore, the most critical aspect of the DTV transition is ensuring that consumers are prepared for it. Congress mandated the DTV transition, and it is its responsibility to protect our constituents by ensuring the transition proceeds as smoothly as possible.

I am pleased to see the House consider this measure, which will contribute to a more successful transition. I strongly support S. 2607 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the University of Michigan Hospital

and Health Center, UMHHC, Security and Entrance Services for receiving the 2008 Lindberg Bell Award. Bestowed annually by the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety, IAHSS, the Lindberg Bell Award is given to the hospital with the best healthcare security program in the country. The IAHSS has over 1,600 members and is the only healthcare security organization in the U.S. They provide valuable services to those in the field, including education and training programs. The award recognizes organizations that have vastly improved their services over the last year, and the UMHHC Security and Entrance Services should be commended for meeting this high standard.

The UMHHC Security and Entrance Services is charged with protecting hospital personnel and property, in addition to providing excellent customer service. This is no small feat, considering that there are over 10,000 people in the hospital at any given time. Their leadership skills and innovative spirit have been demonstrated though the development of a badge system for the Mott Children's Hospital. Under this program, all visitors to the hospital must check in at a station to receive a badge to wear during their stay at the hospital. This system resulted in an increase in security and has spread to other sections of the hospital. I am confident the UMHHC will continue to provide a high level of security for patients.

As a Lindberg Bell Awardee, it is my hope that the UMHHC Security and Entrance Services will continue to serve as an example to the community and its peers that the security of our patients should not be overlooked. Our hospitals open their doors each day to diagnose and care to the citizens of our community. It is imperative that while serving this mission our doctors and nurses are not distracted by outside issues. By going the extra mile, UMHHC is ensuring that every person who walks through their doors will know that both high quality care and safety comes first. Again, I commend UMHHC for their effort and tireless dedication to its patients. To the doctors, nurses and support staff, I congratulate each one of you for being part of a health system who takes the mission of caring for patients to the next level. Congratulations UMHHC on winning the Lindberg Bell Award.

Mr. Speaker, before us is a very simple responsibility. It is a power that has been exercised exclusively by Congress since the very first Congress in 1789, when in the Indian Nonintercourse Act of that year, only Congress may extinguish Indian land claims. That has been the law ever since.

So before us is simply the question of whether we're going to accept or deny a settlement agreed upon by the tribes and by the State of Michigan to resolve a serious problem in the Upper Peninsula, in the district of our good friend and colleague, Mr. Stupak.

Having said that, what is going to happen is this legislation will permit us to resolve those questions, to enable Indians to resolve the land claims concerns that they have, and to allow the State of Michigan to resolve its concerns and to allow its citizens to remove clouds over the title on the lands which they own up there, and which will enable the Indians to begin to live a more orderly and proper life.

This legislation was opposed by my friend, Mr. Jack Abramoff, who left a rather spectacular and smelly legacy. And it is a chance for us now to undo some of the nastiness that he sought to do by preventing the resolution of these questions.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge my colleagues to support the settlement of these rights which were agreed upon between two Governors of the State of Michigan--Governor Engler, a Republican, and Governor Granholm, a Democrat.

And this legislation is not only supported by the affected tribes and citizens of the Upper Peninsula but also by the AFL-CIO and the UAW and a wide roster of other unions that are strongly supportive of this.

I want to commend and thank my good friend from West Virginia and my good friend from Alaska for their gracious kindness in this matter.

This is a cry for justice from Indians who have had their land unjustly and improperly taken from them. It is not a violation of Indian gambling law, and this is the only place in which those Indians can get justice. They asked for justice.

Now, you've just heard a lot of things, and there are a lot of people on this floor who are entitled to their own view, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

What are the facts? Under Michigan law, this is legal. Here's a copy of the vote and the ballot that was put before the people of Michigan. It specifically excludes this kind of transaction, and it says that it will ``not apply to Indian tribal gaming'' and then goes on to say ``or gambling in up to three casinos located in the City of Detroit.'' It doesn't apply. That's hooey.

Now, let's take a look. The claim is legitimate. The land was stolen from the Indians in an improper tax sale, and until this matter is resolved, there will be no peace in the area. The Indians will be denied justice, and land titles and land settlements in the northern part of Michigan will be clouded for years to come.

This came out of the committee 22-5. It has been heard many times.

Now, the legislation follows--it does not set--congressional precedent in dealing with Indian land claim settlements. In fact, the Congress, as mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan, has the sole power to extinguish land claims, since the very first of the Congress, and it follows precedents set by Torres Martinez, the Timbisha Shoshone, the Mohegan Tribe, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in 1983.

This is drastically different than off-reservation gambling. In that scenario, the tribe purchases land and then the Secretary lets them go down there and gamble. This is not so. As mentioned, it fully complies with the requirements of the Indian gambling law.

The land was not selected by the Indians. It was selected by the Governor of the State of Michigan, John Engler, and it was ratified by the Michigan legislature and by our current Governor, with a change in the law.

The votes of the people of the communities have supported the fact that if gambling is to occur in these communities it will occur. The people of the State of Michigan, the people of the cities involved have come out and have said they want this to take place.

Let us give justice to the Indians. The bill does not, I repeat, violate the will of the people of the State of Michigan.

And the legislation is going to bring desperately needed jobs to southeast Michigan, some 4,000 in my district, some 1,000 in that of the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). It is supported by unions that believe that this will bring good union jobs to Michigan and that it will help the Indians.

As repeated, there are two groups here who oppose this legislation. One group is of those who legitimately oppose gambling. That's a matter of concern to them, and I respect their judgment. The rest are those good-hearted folk who seek an unfair advantage. They want to protect and preserve their outrageous monopoly on gambling. That's what's at stake. That's all that's involved here; a bunch of good-hearted people are seeking special preference for themselves.

A Member came over to me, and he talked about Abramoff. I remember Abramoff, a very unsavory individual, and the interesting thing is that Abramoff was hired at a high price to oppose the legislation we are discussing today. So, if you're concerned about voting with Jack Abramoff, don't vote against the bill; vote for the bill. The Abramoff vote is a ``no'' vote. The right vote is an ``aye'' vote.

Vote to give justice to the Native American people. The citizens of the communities in which these facilities will be located legally, legitimately and properly are, in my district, in one city, 100 percent African American and, in the other, 50 percent African American. There is no racial question here. If you are looking to do racial justice, support the legislation. Take care of the Native Americans, and take care of the African Americans who will benefit from these jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.