Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2312, a bill to extend the deadline for Inmarsat to conduct the initial public offering required of it by the ORBIT Act.

The ORBIT Act was adopted in March of 2000 to promote a competitive market for satellite communications through privatization of inter- governmental organizations, one of which is Inmarsat. To further the twin goals of the privatization and independence of satellite carriers, the ORBIT Act called on Inmarsat to conduct an initial public offering (IPO) by December 31, 2001. As that December 2001 deadline approached, however, it became clear, given market conditions at the time, that it would be punitive to effectively force Inmarsat to conduct its IPO by the specified date. As a result, Congress passed legislation to provide an additional year to conduct the IPO, and also provided the FCC the ability to grant a six-month extension if warranted by market conditions.

Unfortunately, the market conditions have not improved to a point where it would be reasonable to require the IPO, and the current deadline--June 30, 2003--is now less than a month away. H.R. 2312, the ORBIT Technical Corrections Act, would not require Inmarsat to conduct its IPO until June 30, 2004, and it permits the FCC to grant an additional six months delay should market conditions continue to warrant such regulatory action. This legislation is clearly necessary at this time, lest the government would unfairly require one company and its investors to risk capital by offering shares to the public at a time when such shares are likely to be undervalued--perhaps grossly undervalued.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce continues to take an interest in the state of competition in the industry and the financial health of those who invest capital to build networks and offer satellite communications services. But as we proceed to grant one carrier additional time with which to conduct its IPO, I would observe that another provider--New Skies Satellites--long ago fulfilled the ORBIT Act's IPO and substantial dilution requirements. Since that time, it has diluted its original shareholder base yet again with a 10 percent share buyback. And New Skies is competing for satellite business independently, with strong independent management, precisely as congress envisioned in ORBIT. As

the Committee considers holding hearings to examine the state of competition in the satellite industry, I believe that Congress, having introduced a new market competitor to the satellite industry, ought to examine whether the many restrictions the ORBIT Act placed on ``separated entities''--in effect New Skies--are still necessary to preserve that company's independence and promote competition.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on these issues. Today, I am satisfied simply to enact H.R. 2312. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1320, the ``Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act,'' to ensure that consumers benefit from the tremendous technological advances in commercial wireless services.

I had several concerns when this bill was first introduced, and I commend Chairmen Tauzin and Upton for working with me to address my concerns.

It is important that the Committee on Energy and Commerce, whenever it creates a direct funding mechanism to achieve a policy goal, ensure that both the Committee and the congress maintain full and effective oversight abilities. I am comfortable that the substitute before us achieves that goal.

First, it directs that both the Comptroller General and the Energy and Commerce and Appropriations Committees receive reports on the preliminary and final cost estimates for all relocations. The Committees and the General Accounting Office (GAO) will also receive reports on an annual basis regarding adherence to cost estimates and proposed timelines. These materials, taken together, will permit the Congress to closely monitor the spending inclinations of the Department of Defense and other agencies as they relocate to new spectrum.

Also--this is particularly important--if an agency ever exceeds its spending estimates by 10 percent, it has to justify that increase both to the relevant Committees and to the GAO. In addition, the government agency in question is prohibited from spending the additional request for 45 days while the Congress examines the reason for the cost overrun.

Thesxe provisions are not perfect, but they represent a good faith effort on the part of the Energy and Commerce leadership to exercise effective oversight over the relocation process. I am pleased that Chairman Tauzin, Subcommittee Chairman Upton, Subcommittee Ranking Member Markey and I will be working with the GAO throughout the process to ensure that its work is thorough and its oversight is effective.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to passing this legislation and to bringing the next generation of wireless services to America's consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 361, the ``Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act'' (SPARTA). This legislation will hold unscrupulous sports agents responsible for their actions by authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and State attorneys general to enforce common sense protections for amateur athletes. I commend the chief sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his hard work on this bill.

This legislation empowers students with the ability to decide when and where they become professionals and protects them from the underhanded tactics that have become all too common in this field. Under this legislation, student athletes can no longer be tricked into signaling contracts through the deception or bribery of a sports agent. And agents must clearly disclose to students that they will no longer be amateurs if they sign an agency contract, before they sign the contract.

SPARTA enjoys wide support in the academic community and has been endorsed by the NCAA and over 30 colleges and universities, including the University of Michigan. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a strong message to the unprincipled sports agents who prey on our youth.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to acknowledge the 25th Anniversary of the Downriver Council for the Arts (DCA). The DCA has been a driving force in bringing quality arts education, valuable cultural information and employment to artists and educators throughout the Downriver community.

Founded in 1978, the DCA is a non-profit, umbrella organization that represents, promotes and serves the 18 Downriver communities. The DCA's Home Gallery, resource library, information center, newsletter, cultural calendar, weekly column, arts hotline, website and cable programs provide up-to-date information on artistic, cultural and special events to the nearly 400,000 residents of Downriver.

The DCA works closely with community-based arts organizations, service clubs, municipal governments, schools and social agencies to bring the arts into the community. This wonderful organization nurtures the cultural and artistic growth of thousands of Downriver residents. The DCA not only fosters strong relationships between art institutions and educators, but also serves as a bridge between all socio-economic categories.

The DCA provides volunteer, educational and professional development opportunities, works to insure equal access to artistic opportunities and promotes the recognition of art and culture as a primary contributor to economic development and the quality of life within the Downriver communities.

Mr. Speaker, as the Downriver Council for the Arts celebrates its 25th Anniversary, I would ask that all my colleagues rise and salute this phenomenal organization for all that they have done and will continue to do for the arts in Downriver.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the extraordinary leadership of Mr. Joseph L. Hudson Jr. Mr. Hudson has been a committed civic leader in the greater Detroit area for over 45 years. Over the course of his lifetime, Mr. Hudson has served as a role model for not only his leadership abilities, but his dedication to his community, his church and, most important of all, his family.

Born on July 4, 1931 in Buffalo, New York, Mr. Hudson was destined to be a strong figure in our Nation's landscape. Mr. Hudson joined the J.L. Hudson Company following graduation from Yale in 1953. Between 1954 and 1956 he served as an artillery officer with the U.S. Army in Germany. In 1956 he returned to Hudson's, was elected a Vice President in 1957 and in 1961 became President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Hudson retired from the

J.L. Hudson Company and the Dayton Hudson Corporation in 1982 after serving as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for ten years.

In 1956 Mr. Hudson was elected to the board of trustees of the Hudson-Webber Foundation and served as President and then Chairman from 1961 until his retirement in 1996. The Hudson-Webber Foundation is committed to improving the vitality and quality of life of the metropolitan Detroit community with special emphasis on the Detroit Medical Center, the arts, crime reduction, economic development and the communities' urban revitalization needs.

Mr. Hudson's civic and community involvement includes service on the City of Detroit Arts Commission (Detroit Institute of Arts) where he served as President from 1979-1990; Active Honorary Trustee and founding Chairman of New Detroit, Inc., America's first urban coalition. Mr. Hudson has also received Honorary Doctor of Humanities Degrees from the University of Detroit, Wayne State University, and Michigan State University.

In June of 2003, Mr. Hudson will complete 19 years as founding Chairman of the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, Detroit, Michigan. Under his remarkable leadership, the Community Foundation has distributed more than $145 million in over 18,000 grants to improve the seven counties of Southeastern Michigan. The Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan is one of the youngest and fastest growing of over 600 community foundations worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all my colleagues rise and join me in honoring Mr. Hudson's humanitarian achievements and tireless dedication to his community and church.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Elizabeth Foley, from Saline, Michigan, which is located in my district, on becoming a State Honoree in the 2003 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards Program for outstanding volunteer service.

Conducted in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards were created eight years ago by Prudential Financial, Inc. to encourage youth volunteerism and to identify and reward young role models. State Honorees are chosen from more than 24,000 applicants as particularly impressive examples of what young Americans today are capable of doing to make their communities better places to live.

Ms. Foley, 14, organized the ``Visual Ambassadors,'' a school group dedicated to educating others about the visually impaired. After being inspired by a blind friend who taught her Braille, Elizabeth wanted to help educate other students about what visually impaired individuals go through each day. After writing a project proposal and obtaining the approval of school officials, Elizabeth developed plans for a six-week after school class. She bought Braille books, organized a field trip and put together an information packet for her students. She hopes to have over 100 graduates of her program by the time she goes to college.

This young woman's selfless acts to enlighten others about the disabled should be commended. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to join me and all of my colleagues in congratulating Ms. Foley for her accomplishments.

Well, here we are again, my dear colleagues, deja vu all over again.

The Republicans told us yesterday how they were going to have a second rule. Well, the second rule is just like the first, unfair, stifling debate, and not allowing discussion.

We are told it is bipartisan. It reminds me of the story of a fellow who complained about the stew. He was told it is horse and rabbit stew. He said, what is the recipe? They said, oh, it is simple. Equal parts, one horse, one rabbit. He said, no wonder it tastes like hell.

The simple fact of the matter is that is what we have here. That is the Republican definition of bipartisanship.

They exclude seven significant amendments. Why? I can only assume one of several reasons: They are scared to death to debate them; they want to be unfair; they have not got the vaguest ideas of what is fairness or how a representative body should function. I suspect all of the above are there. In any event, it tends to show they either know or care less about fairness than a hawk does about a handsaw.

What have they denied us the right to do? Legislation to address environmental concerns. Legislation to address the problem of chemical and nuclear weapons. Imagine what is going to happen if the Spratt amendment does not go into place and all of a sudden terrorists show up with nuclear weapons, or they show up with weapons of chemical or biological character because they got them out of a leaky stockpile in Russia? They do away with the opportunity to offer an open bidding requirement on contracts over $1 million. That says that they probably are scared to discuss this issue. They will not discuss the question of base closings. They refuse to help immigrant soldiers to get citizenship and for us to offer an amendment to allow that.

Now there are certain things about a representative body that I have to assume my Republican friends either do not care about or they do not know about. My dear Republican colleagues serve here as the servants of the people. This is the House of Representatives, with emphasis on the word representatives. We are all supposed to represent the House. My Republican colleagues are supposed to represent in the House the people whom they serve. They are also supposed to respect all of the people who are served here and to allow wide, broad, fair, discussion of important issues.

Is there a shortage of time to debate? Absolutely not. We meet about 3 days a week. But my Republican friends do not seem to have time to discuss important questions. I can only assume it is because they do not understand our duty to the people.

My Republican colleagues are creating a precedent which is bad. First of all, we do not debate the issues that are important. Second of all, my colleagues are creating a poisonous atmosphere in this place which is going to continue and to persist for a long time. The ability of this institution to properly debate questions and to have respect for each other and for the people we serve is being demeaned by this rule. I say, shame.

Let us defeat the rule, let us defeat the previous question, let us get the House back to being what it should be, the representatives of the people.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule. It should be defeated. My Republican colleagues have done the same thing that they usually do. They have gagged the minority. They have denied us a right to discuss important questions, and they refuse to give us the right to offer amendments.

The chairman of the Committee on Rules appears in the well of the House and tells us what a wonderful job they have done at being fair. If they were fair, they should have had the courage and decency on that side of the aisle to let us offer the amendments that should be offered to allow matters to be properly discussed.

This is the language of the Endangered Species Act. There is no need for them to take away the right of the government to properly protect our national symbol, the bald eagle, and other endangered species. There is no reason for the other side to afford the authorities that the leadership in the Department of Defense have sought. Indeed, the members of the agency itself, the fighting soldiers have not asked for and do not want it.

It is interesting to note that they not only amend the environmental laws, but they have amended many more, and they again foreclose the opportunity for amendments.

Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules comes down and says we are going to have more opportunities. We are going to be considering it again. Well, if we have to consider it again, why did they not offer us a fair rule in the first place? Why do they have to do it this way? They have basically a sound bill, but they have sought to change all manner of environmental laws, and they will put more on the floor if they are permitted to do so.

Indeed, one of the remarkable things that my Republican colleagues have sought to do is to change the Civil Service laws and to repeal, amongst other things, the laws against nepotism. Perhaps there is a little Cheney or a little Bush in the woods somewhere that needs a job, or perhaps a little Wolfowitz. There might even be a relative of the membership on that side of the aisle who happens to need employment.

We should address these issues properly. This is the People's House. We are supposed to discuss great national issues. We are supposed to, under the traditions and the practices of this body, to have the ability to discuss matters which the public thinks are important. Certainly the protection of conservation values, certainly the protection of Civil Service laws, certainly the protection of the values that all of us think are important enough to be discussed in this body and not strangled by the Committee on Rules when the chairman comes down and says, oh, we have been fair.

Well, if the gentleman from California has been fair, why in the name of common sense does he not have the goodness to allow us to have an opportunity simply to offer the amendment? Is it because my Republican colleagues are scared to death and afraid to permit an honest discussion, to have an honest application of the rules of the House with regard to the offering of amendments? Why are they so afraid on the other side of the aisle to have the truth brought forth and to offer a fair procedure?

Mr. Speaker, as a long-time supporter and friend of the automotive industry I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 100th anniversary of Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company is the quintessential model of industrial growth and capitalism at work. Ford has not only been a significant part of the social, economic, and cultural heritage of the United States, but a revolutionary industrial and global institution.

On June 16, 1903, then 39-year-old Henry Ford and 11 associates, armed with little cash, some tools, a few blueprints, and unbounded faith, submitted incorporation papers to Michigan's capital in Lansing. For the next 5 years, young Henry Ford, first as chief engineer and later as president, directed an all-out development and production program which shifted in 1905 from the rented quarters on Detroit's Mack Avenue to a much larger building at Piquette and Beaubien streets. A total of 1,700 cars--the early Model A's--came sputtering out of the old wagon factory during the first 15 months of operation.

The Model T chugged into history on October 1, 1908. Henry Ford called it the ``universal car.'' It became the symbol of low-cost, reliable transportation that could get through when other cars stuck in the muddy roads. The Model T won the approval of millions of Americans, who affectionately dubbed it the ``Tin Lizzie.'' The first year's production of Model T's reached 10,660, breaking all records for the industry.

By the end of 1913, Ford Motor Company was producing half of all the automobiles in the United States. In order to keep ahead of the demand, Ford initiated mass production in the factory. Mr. Ford reasoned that with each worker remaining in one assigned place, with one specific task to do, the automobile would take shape more quickly as it moved from section to section and countless man-hours would be saved. The advent of the assembly line truly revolutionized industry.

Henry Ford startled the world yet again on January 5, 1914, by announcing that Ford Motor Company's minimum wage would be $5 a day-- more than double the existing minimum rate. Mr. Ford felt that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. Ford considered the payment of $5 for an 8-hour day the finest cost-cutting move he ever made. ``I can find methods of manufacturing that will make high wages,'' he said. ``If you cut wages, you just cut the number of your customers.''

The Model T started a rural revolution. The $5 day and the philosophy behind it started a social revolution. The moving assembly line started an industrial revolution.

The Model A was finally pushed aside by a consumer demand for even more luxury and

power. Ford Motor Company was ready with plenty of both in its next entry--its first V-8--which was introduced to the public on April 1, 1932. Ford was the first company in history to cast a V-8 block in one piece successfully. Experts told Mr. Ford it could not be done. It was many years before Ford's competitors learned how to mass-produce a reliable V-8. In the meantime, the Ford car and its powerful engine became a favorite of performance-minded Americans.

Ford Motor Company was only a year old when it inaugurated its foreign expansion program in 1904 with the opening of a modest plant in Walkerville, Ontario, named Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd.

Senior managers from Ford Motor Company's branches and subsidiaries around the world descended on company headquarters in Dearborn, MI, in June 1948 to attend the company's first-ever full international management meeting. After 45 years in business the automaker had a presence in nearly every corner of the globe.

Today, Ford has manufacturing, assembly or sales facilities in 30 countries worldwide. Ford produces millions of cars and trucks annually; it is a leader in automobile sales outside North America.

The focus of the 1960's was on youth. A young president Kennedy led an economically healthy, upbeat America. Ford Motor Company recognized a strong market demand for an inexpensive sporty new vehicle targeted to the young buyer. Lee Iacocca, then the General Manager of the Ford Division, personally sold the startling new concept to Henry Ford II and a skeptical finance department. Start-up costs were a mere $75 million due to the incorporation of the existing Falcon engine, transmission and axle, but the return investment would prove phenomenal. The Mustang exploded onto the scene in a 1964 introduction that drew throngs to showrooms across the country. Such intense interest had not been witnessed since the introduction of the Model A. The sharp, 4-seat 1965 Mustang became the ``darling'' of America. The ``love affair'' brought about the sale of 100,000 Mustangs in the first 100 days. Total sales for the year reached 418,812, far exceeding the 100,000 projected by market research. Ford's design innovation of the late 1950's led to the Mustang's record-setting first year sales and $1 billion in profits.

Today, Ford's plans for continued expansion domestically and overseas and the company's wide diversification mean ongoing employment opportunities, not only in my home state of Michigan and the other 49 states in America, but around the globe. The driving force behind the Ford Motor Company has been and continues to be producing better products at a lower cost.

Through years of prosperity and hardship, through war and peace, Ford Motor Company grew from one man, a small garage and a quadricycle, to a mighty American force contributing to international economic stability. Meanwhile the nation became an industrial giant of unmatched strength and vitality. The Ford story, in a sense, is the story of the American Century.

Mr. Speaker, as Ford Motor Company celebrates its 100th anniversary, I would ask that all my colleagues rise and salute the legend and automobile company that is Ford.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to acknowledge and celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the Deputy Sheriff's Association of Michigan (DSAM). Over the past 25 years, DSAM has been dedicated to improving public safety in Michigan and improving the quality of life for all Michiganders.

Since its inception in 1978, DSAM has grown to include thousands of members from most of Michigan's 83 counties. The men and women of DSAM volunteer their time to ensure that the concerns of Michigan's Sheriff Departments are heard by their elected officials. DSAM has worked to ensure the enactment of sound law enforcement and correction legislation, making Michigan a safer place to live.

DSAM goes above and beyond representing the Sheriff Departments of Michigan. By ensuring law enforcement has a voice on public safety legislation, DSAM has a direct impact on all of Michigan's people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the Deputy Sheriff's Association of Michigan on 25 years of continued dedication to ensure the public safety of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to Whitmore-Bolles Elementary School on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary. The school's long and successful history began in 1927 when Laura Whitmore donated the land for the purpose of an elementary school. Currently, Whitmore-Bolles schools 367 students, preschoolers through fifth grade. In addition, Whitmore-Bolles schooling includes a central program for hearing impaired/hard of hearing elementary students. A reflection of Whitmore-Bolles outstanding faculty, students and education can be seen in the various third and fourth generation families that remain in this elementary program.

Whitmore-Bolles Elementary has flourished because of its dedicated and exceptional staff. There are a number of highly qualified and enthusiastic teachers that have spent their entire careers at Whitmore- Bolles. Every year several teachers from Whitmore-Bolles are nominated for the Alberta Muirhead Teacher of the Year Award. In addition to the admirable teaching staff, Whitmore-Bolles has also prospered because of its committed and highly regarded principals. Since Miss Marguerite Fay

became the first principal in September 1927, Whitmore-Bolles has only had six principals, each of whom have maintained an excellent educational environment. These principals include: Jack Rabe (1949- 1967), Walfrid Toma (1967-1971), Roy Raymer (1971-1984), Bernard Boyle (1984-1989), John Tobin (1989-1999), and the current principal Dawn Eule.

Over the years the hard work and commitment of the Whitmore-Bolles faculty has been apparent in the elementary school's accomplished students. Whitmore-Bolles continues to place first in citywide championships for track, volleyball (boys and girls), and chess. The fourth and fifth graders are involved in annual concerts given by the band and select choir programs. Also, the elementary students have received many art awards for excellence. In addition, the students this year at Whitmore-Bolles have expanded their educational environment by developing a school newspaper, the ``Whitmore Times.'' The publication includes articles and stories written and researched by students. Furthermore, this year four students and two former students were honored in Law Day Essay. Before graduating from Whitmore-Bolles, all students are rewarded for their efforts. This year the fourth graders at Whitmore-Bolles are traveling to Mackinaw Island, and the fifth graders are off to camp. Although the teachers play a significant role in the development of Whitmore students, this energetic and talented student body would not be possible without the active PTA and parent volunteers that plan the students' various functions throughout the year.

Whitmore-Bolles is a well-respected school known for its achievements in education. This past fall Whitmore-Bolles elementary was awarded the Golden Apple Award by former Governor John Engler. Whitmore elementary was one of two in Dearborn to receive this recognition for success and achievement. In addition, this elementary school recently received accreditation through the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation. Whitmore-Bolles counts among its prestigious alumni Representative Gary Woronchak, former Lions quarterback Gary Danielson, and Channel Seven news anchor Erik Smith. With 75 years of exceptional students, an outstanding staff, supportive parents and prestigious alumni, Whitmore-Bolles has much to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me and all of my colleagues in congratulating Whitmore-Bolles Elementary on its 75th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to Mary Kay Kosa, a community leader and dear friend. On Sunday, May 18, 2003 a plaque will be dedicated in Mrs. Kosa's memory for her service to the Monroe County Mental Health Board.

Born in Monroe County in 1928, Mary Kay Kosa spent her life helping others. She served 22 years on the Monroe County Mental Health Board, from her appointment in 1980 until 2002, acting as Chairperson from 1994 on. During her tenure Mrs. Kosa helped facilitate the growth of the program by endorsing cooperation with the Washtenaw County Health Organization. She also helped to turn the former county department into an authority, an accomplishment that aided the development of mental health services in the area.

In addition to her service on the Mental Health Board, Mary Kay Kosa was renowned for lending a helping hand to anyone in the community. During her 25 years as a teacher in the Monroe public schools and another 25 years as an administrator, she touched the lives of thousands of children and teachers alike. Moreover, Mrs. Kosa aided in the advancement of minorities by participating in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and chairing the Monroe branch of the American Association of University Women.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the life of Mary Kay Kosa. She often said, ``if you live in a community, you owe that community and I have a commitment to Monroe.'' Mrs. Kosa and her husband of 50 years, Edward Kosa, lived by this philosophy in addition to encouraging others to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill and a bad rule. It is unfair. It is a bill which could best be entitled ``leave no millionaire behind.'' It has not worked before, it will not work again.

If this bill passes, it will cost my State of Michigan $111 million in revenue. I would note that the millionaires will get $100,000 a year back. Ordinary citizens are going to be lucky if they get $100. It is going to raid Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It is going to put the education of our kids at risk, and put our State and local governments in more of a straitjacket than they already are financially.

I would note there is one outrageous provision in this piece of legislation which defines American corporations like Chrysler, Mazda, National Steel and BASF as foreigners. Chrysler employs better than 100,000 American workers and contributes to the American economy better than 1 percent of its total gross domestic product.

I would urge the President or my Republican friends over there to come back to Michigan to see the new plant being built at Dundee, Michigan, to provide jobs and opportunities for the American people.

This is an outrageous procedure, an outrageous bill, and it should be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate my dear friend Dr. Herbert S. Moyer on the occasion of his 75th birthday. Over the course of his lifetime, Dr. Moyer has proven himself to be a passionate and effective educator, a committed community servant and a loving husband, father and grandfather.

A lifelong Michigan resident, Dr. Moyer worked as both a teacher and school administrator before becoming Superintendent of the Bedford Public Schools in 1984. Herb retired from the same position 13 years later, having provided stable and visionary leadership for the Bedford Schools. Dr. Moyer's professionalism and accomplishments earned him the Michigan Superintendent of the Year distinction in 1994. More importantly, under Dr. Moyer's direction, the Bedford Public Schools made tangible and steady progress in academic achievement. Herb also advocated unique partnerships with community organizations that enabled Bedford residents to benefit from resources the school district owned and, in turn, enabled the school district to benefit from the collective good-will and talents of all of its residents.

Once retired, Herb abided the same sense of community service evident from when he served in the United States Army in both Germany and Austria. Dr. Moyer successfully ran for a seat on the State Board of Education and has served to help guide educational policy for the entire State of Michigan in this position since 1996. Herb is also an ordained Presbyterian Elder, remains active with the Monroe Chamber of Commerce and the Monroe Democratic Party. As part of his legacy in the Bedford Public Schools, Herb funds a $1,000 scholarship to be awarded annually by the Bedford PTA to the student who has demonstrated outstanding academic and volunteer achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled and honored to count such an accomplished and distinguished man and public servant amongst my friends. I ask that you join me in congratulating Dr. Herbert Moyer on his 75th birthday and in wishing him and his wife, Lonnie Peppler Moyer, many more happy years of life, marriage and service to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Most vigorously opposed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit directly addresses major concerns, and that is destruction of fish, wildlife resources and the denial of the ability of this Nation, through its system of hydro licensing and relicensing to protect those fish and wildlife resources and the precious outdoor values that this Nation feels important.

The motion includes reforms contained in the bill which I would have offered or, rather, the amendment which I would have offered with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) of the Committee on Science. It is necessary to protect the egregious wrongs committed against fish, wildlife and the environment by the outrageous provisions of H.R. 6.

As I pointed out yesterday, all sportsmen, conservationists, hunters, fishermen organizations and all environmentalists support this language.

The amendment which we would have offered was not made available to the House because it was not permitted by the Committee on Rules, and the voices of the conservationists of this country were stilled by that outrageous action.

I want to remind my colleagues of exactly what this legislation does, and I refer to the bill, H.R. 6. It confers superparty status on license applicants by allowing them to propose alternatives to resource protection conditions, giving them special procedural rights that are not granted to other legitimate stakeholders like States, tribes, sportsmen or ordinary citizens.

It dilutes environmental protections included in current law and will overturn over 100 years of fish and wildlife protections which we have given with regard to the rivers and streams of this Nation.

It creates an entirely new and costly subsidy program for a mature industry that does not need, nor does it deserve, the support of taxpayers at a time of enormous deficits. Needless to say, the language we have before us lies in stark contrast to the hydroelectric provisions that were contained in last year's energy bill.

Last year, our work was not only bipartisan in character, but it was supported by the industry as well as the groups that now oppose the provisions of the legislation. Indeed, of all of those who supported the hydroelectric title last year, only one group remains satisfied today, the utilities. A quick reading of the bill explains why.

The bill before us gives the hydropower industry unprecedented advantage during the licensing process at the expense of protections for fish, wildlife and natural resources. The bill before us would do enormous damage to fish passage requirements of current law. It would deny the need for fishways and would afford no ability by sportsmen groups or conservationists or the Indian tribes to insist that such be included in dams so as to facilitate the upward or the downward passage of fish in our great rivers.

This imperils the ability of fish to reach spawning grounds and subjects them to the hideous cruelties of having to pass through hydroelectric turbines to carry out their natural functions.

The bill is strongly opposed by, as I have said, almost all conservation, sportsmen and environmental groups. I will have a list of those people who oppose and the organizations who oppose

available to discuss with any Member who so desires.

The compromise we offer today is identical to the language which the House passed in the last Congress and which my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, joined me in supporting and which involved a compromise not just between the two parties here in the Congress but also a compromise between industry and conservationists.

The motion and the amendment which we have before us protects natural resources, fish and wildlife. The bill does not. The motion allows the license applicant or any other party to a licensing proceeding to propose an alternative to the conditions set by the resource agencies so that the fullest possible discussion of methods for protection of fish and wildlife values in our rivers and waters may be achieved.

I note that the language that we offer in the motion to recommit is exactly the same which I agreed on with my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I would note that he described this legislation with me as a bipartisan consensus provision that carefully balances energy and environmental priorities to achieve a significant breakthrough in licensing reform.

I urge my colleagues, in the interest of protecting our natural resources, to vote for the legislation, and let us make this a better bill in the interests of all of us and in the interests of future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I pay my respects to the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.