Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we proceed, it should be clear. We're talking now about the Andean Trade Preference Act, and we're not talking about the free trade agreements that have been discussed here.

In my view, whether one supports or opposes any of those free trade agreements, it would be counterproductive for someone to vote against extension of the ATPA for 8 months.

This relates, as mentioned, to the four nations. The original ATPA was passed in 1991, and it was expanded and

extended through a voice vote in the year 2001.

I think it should be emphasized that, basically, our trade relationship with these four nations is more complementary than it is competitive. That's a crucial issue. And if you exclude oil and oil products, our trade balance, our relationship, is essentially balanced in the range of 10- to $11 billion that we export and they export, if you exclude oil, which is not covered by the ATPA.

The Andean countries are a steadily growing market for U.S. goods, and that meant there was an increase, a rather substantial one, in 2005 over 2004.

Let me touch briefly on issues that have been discussed regarding the ATPA. First, apparel. The Andean Trade Preference Act requires the use of U.S. yarns in fabrics, so it isn't a one-way street. And it's somewhat technical, but if you include, if you look at the source of the fabric, essentially the U.S. has made clear that we're not going to be left out in the cold.

In terms of crops, whether they're fruit or vegetable crops, the trade is far more seasonal. In that sense, the trade is far more complementary than it is competitive. And so it's been of mutual interest to have this Andean Trade Preference Act. And that's why it was passed originally with broad support. It was extended with broad support. There was controversy last time because it was tied to TPA, and it essentially gave different treatment to Bolivia and Ecuador that this bill does not do.

So it's also, I think, because of the complementariness of this agreement that it has had broad support in this country, and that's true in good parts of the management ranks as well as the labor ranks.

There's been reference here to drugs, and that's been a mixed picture. But I think there is evidence that the ATPA, which was originally passed as part of a drug eradication strategy, has had some positive impact in several countries, much less so I think in Colombia than in Bolivia and Peru.

If this is not renewed, I think it would be mutually disadvantageous. I think, because of the mutuality of this agreement, the way it's worked out, that we should pass it.

And I close by emphasizing we're talking today about the renewal, or I should say the extension, of the ATPA for 8 months. We're not talking about free trade agreements. I strongly urge approval of this 8-month extension.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who chairs the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, a distinguished colleague, indeed, Mr. Kind from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to a very valued Member of this body, and we came to this institution together, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

I want to be clear; we're voting on the Andean Trade Preference Act, we are not voting on FTAs. We are not voting for a bridge to other agreements, we're voting on the merits of the extension of this Trade Preference Act.

It has basically worked. On this side, we're opposed to one-way trade agreements. This has been a two-way passage for those countries and for this country.

Our trade, if you include oil not covered by the Trade Preference Act, has essentially been in balance. We should extend this on its own merits.

In terms of asparagus, if you look at the facts, it shows that these agreements are basically complementary and not competitive.

I urge support of this extension, as I said, on its own merits, not because anyone is trying to use this as a path to anything else.

Vote ``yes'' on this. Be clear. This has been a two-way street, which this side of the aisle has insisted on as a basic part of American trade policy, and we will continue to do that, building upon it with a new model of trade.

I urge a strong vote for this extension.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1281, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill.

We have come a long way since the Jim Crow era of voter disenfranchisement and intimidation, but we still have a long way yet to go to ensure an equal right to vote for all citizens. Every election, we hear shocking and disgraceful stories of voters being lied to about their voter registration or citizenship status, polling place information, or even the date of the election, in order to suppress the vote in certain areas. The targets of these tactics seem to always be the same: racial minorities, immigrants and poor communities.

Thomas Paine once said, ``Voting is the right upon which all other rights depend.'' Throughout our nation's history, Congress has acted to ensure that right, granting African Americans and women the right to vote, prohibiting states from requiring the payment of poll taxes to vote, and the passage and reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today, we continue in that grand tradition with passage of this important legislation to make it unlawful to knowingly communicate false information with the intent to prevent another person from casting a ballot.

The right to vote may be the most basic right we have as Americans, but we must remain vigilant in protecting this right in order to ensure that it is not weakened or undermined by those who seek political gain at the expense of this basic tenet of democracy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1281.

Mr. Chairman, over 25 years ago I was assistant administrator of AID, running the population program. This issue of fungibility came up. We were assiduously implementing the Hyde amendment. So we tried through accounting mechanisms to address the fungibility issue.

So then it was said that's not enough. So then Mexico City was proposed and implemented.

This is not a repeal of the Mexico City policy. Whatever one thinks of it, it is not.

This isn't about abortion, and it really isn't about fungibility.

Mr. Wolf, if you take your position far enough, we should give no military assistance to any country that has a policy on family planning that you don't like because in that sense it is fungible. But that carries it beyond a rule of reason. And what this proposal does is to apply a rule of reason, as has been said, to contraceptives provided in kind to people who need these contraceptives. That is the long and the short of this. And, essentially, you are the ones who are blurring the issue, not us. And if you take your logic to the extreme, you will tie this appropriation process for numerous countries into knots. This is trying to untie a knot, if you want to put it that way, only in the sense of providing products in kind to people who need them. And if you say you are for family planning and you vote otherwise, you are voting against family planning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we can guarantee that there will be no results.

From juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease to Multiple Sclerosis and cancer, stem cell research has the potential to begin to uncover cures for the diseases that affect our constituents and our families. In the debate over fixing our broken health care system in America, we cannot afford to ignore the medical breakthroughs in disease management that stem cell research has the potential to uncover.

Some opponents of this legislation argue that the federal government already significantly funds stem cell research or that private entities will step in to take up the slack. The reality is that stem cell research is practically at a standstill in this country today. Of the 78 stem cell lines currently permitted under federally funded research, 57 are contaminated and are thus incapable of producing such breakthroughs. Research has been stifled under the Administration's stem cell policy.

This morning's news highlights a recent scientific paper written by scientists that have manipulated an ordinary mouse skin cell into what may be effectively an embryonic stem cell. More research must be done to see if scientists can coax human skin cells to have the same qualities as embryonic stem cells; however, as advocate Sean Tipton told the Washington Post this morning, ``You cannot make good policy one scientific paper at a time.'' The bill before us today encourages further research on isolating and testing non-embryonic cells and at the same time lifts the ban on federal support of embryonic stem cell research.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan approach. The bill only allows the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The legislation contains strict ethical guidelines, including the requirement that embryos can be used only if the donor give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange.

The President vetoed very similar legislation last year, and there is little doubt that he will veto it again. The medical research that embryonic stem cell lines offer is crucial for millions of people dealing with incurable and debilitating diseases. It is an insufficient response for Congress to simply accept the Bush Administration's intransigence on this issue. The legislation before us is a bipartisan bill that strong majorities of the House and Senate support. Further, it is clear that a broad majority of Americans support responsible embryonic stem cell research. The real question today is whether enough Members of the House now recognize that the current stem cell policy is not working and are willing to vote for a better way forward. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, as well as H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act.

When the new Democratic Congress convened on January 4, our first action was the approval of a sweeping package of changes to restore the integrity and fiscal responsibility of the House of Representatives. While these reforms represented the most significant ethics and lobbying revisions in decades, we promised that this would be just the first step in ending the cozy relationships between Congress and special interest lobbyists. Today we take the next important step.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act H.R. 2316 mandates quarterly disclosure of lobbying reports; ends the K Street Project of Members and staff influencing employment decisions of private entities for partisan political gain; increases disclosure of lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers; and establishes an online, searchable public database of lobbyist disclosure information.

One of the most important provisions of this lobbying reform package is the Lobbying Transparency Act, H.R. 2317. This legislation requires a registered lobbyist who also serves as a fundraiser to disclose the campaign checks that he or she solicits or ``bundles.''

When lobbyists also act as campaign fundraisers, a possible conflict of interest arises, making it all the more necessary to allow for greater public awareness as to their actions and treatment.

Reforming the way that lobbyists and Members of Congress do business is the right thing to do not only because it will help to restore the trust of the American people in their institution of Congress, but also because doing so has a very real impact in putting the power back into the hands of the public.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2316 and H.R. 2317.

Mr. Speaker, voting ``no'' today will not bring home the troops during the next four months. The President is determined that the troops remain during this period. The danger is that cutting the funds could leave our troops in Iraq without the necessary equipment, including equipment vital for their safety. It is so difficult to watch the deaths of so many brave American soldiers. Until we can force the President to bring them home, we must give them the equipment they need to keep them safe.

So de-funding this supplemental will not shorten the war but could endanger the safety of our men and women in uniform. This is the issue confronting those of us, like myself, who actively opposed going to war in the first place 4 years ago, and who have voted time and again since then to press the White House and the Iraqi government to achieve a number of key benchmarks so our troops can come home. The Iraqi government has to finally step up and make some difficult political decisions and end the sectarian violence that is tearing their country apart.

The benchmarks contained in this bill are important, but they would be much more effective if they were backed up by a realistic timetable for the redeployment of our troops if the benchmarks are not met. The House and Senate approved just such a bill last month, but the President vetoed it and there were not enough votes in either the House or the Senate to override the President. Everyone should understand that it was not for lack of Democratic votes that we were unable to force the President to change direction on Iraq. The problem is that it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a Presidential veto and only a handful of Republicans were willing to vote with us.

This bill contains funds to provide our troops with body armor, vehicles designed to withstand improvised explosive devices, countermeasures to roadside bombs and mines, and medical care to treat their injuries. Again, voting no on the bill today won't force the President to withdraw our troops from Iraq; it just means our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan won't get the resources they need to protect themselves. Voting no would also cut off funding needed to sustain our military and political efforts in Afghanistan. This is an area that many of us feel deserves more attention and resources, not less.

It is critical that today's vote is not the end of this debate. The funds provided for Iraq in this bill run only through September. In the weeks ahead, there will be other opportunities for Congress to change the direction of this war, to hold the Iraqi government and President Bush accountable, and bring our troops home. The legislation we need to debate and pass is one that essentially deauthorizes our current military involvement in Iraq and provide a responsible timeline for the orderly redeployment of our forces. I regret that this is not the bill before us today, but we will have this debate in September. At that time, I hope that more of our Republican colleagues will join us in voting to change the President's policy on Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1252, I rise in support of the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, and urge its passage by the House.

Gasoline prices are now at record highs. In my home state of Michigan, the average price of regular gas is $3.47 a gallon--a full 66 cents a gallon higher than it was at this time last year. According to the General Accounting Office, the rise in gasoline prices this year has drained consumers of an extra $20 billion. The six largest oil companies announced $30 billion in profits over the first three months of 2007 alone. This is on top of the $125 billion in profits they racked up last year.

The other side says that we should do nothing. They say that it's a world market for oil, and therefore something we cannot control. How then do they explain that the cost of gasoline has been rising even in the face of falling world oil prices? We must face the fact that there is something wrong in the distribution chain, especially during times of energy emergencies such as when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. As a first step in attacking the problem, we need to give the Federal Trade Commission the explicit authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate the price of gasoline.

The oil companies oppose this bill. The White House also has indicated that the President may veto the bill. With all due resect, we work for our constituents, not the oil companies and not the White House. I urge the House to stand with consumers and vote for this needed legislation.

Mr. HARE Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.

Oil prices are continuing to skyrocket, increasing the burden on American families, small businesses, and individuals who rely on their vehicles for their livelihood. Every day I hear from troubled constituents who are paying over $3.00 per gallon at the pump. Constituents like Richard Benefiel, a small business owner who called me yesterday out of desperation explaining he would have to shut down his shipping operation in less than 30 days unless relief was provided. On the other hand, Exxon-Mobil raked in $9.3 billion between January and March--its best first quarter in history. This is unacceptable.

The bill before us today is a much needed step toward addressing market manipulation by Big Oil and the egregious impact it has on the American consumer. The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act provides the Federal Trade Commission with new authority to investigate and prosecute energy companies who engage in predatory pricing, market manipulation, and other unfair practices, with an emphasis on those who profit most, thereby providing immediate and much needed relief to consumers.

Yet, this is only the first step in bringing down energy costs. Last year, our Nation hit its highest dependence on foreign oil, importing 771,000 barrels daily from Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. This served as a wake-up call for the United States to begin taking measures to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I refuse to continue to allow OPEC, which accounts for 65 percent of internationally traded oil, to continue to dictate our Nation's gas prices. Antitrust laws must be put into action and greedy oil exporters need to be held accountable.

I am pleased that we voted yesterday to pass H.R. 2264, which authorizes the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC state-controlled entities who conspire to limit supply or fix the price of oil.

I also believe that building a diverse energy portfolio which focuses on renewable, homegrown energy sources like ethanol, biodiesel, as well as wind, solar, hydro-power and clean-coal technologies is a critical step toward energy independence, which will bring down prices, and clean up our environment.

The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act is a critical first step in addressing skyrocketing energy costs and I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

This bipartisan legislation will give state and local law enforcement the tools and resources they need to prevent and prosecute violent hate crimes.

In the not so distant past, violence motivated by hatred or discrimination towards a minority was sanctioned by our government. As we struggled to right the inequities present in our society, many used targeted violence against individual African Americans as a tactic to scare African Americans in general and discourage the Civil Rights Movement overall.

This type of targeted violence against a minority--violence specifically intended to intimidate and repress all members of that minority--was particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a whole. Congress recognized that these particularly heinous actions warranted stronger criminal penalties, which were codified in Federal hate crimes law in 1968.

Unfortunately, almost 20 years later bias-based violence continues, and while the groups and individuals victimized have changed, the damage remains the same. In 1998, Matthew Sheppard was viciously murdered because of his sexual orientation. In January 2000, a 16-year- old high school female student was brutally attacked by a group of teenagers because the student was holding hands with another girl--a common practice in her native country in Africa. Just last October, Michael Sandy was beaten then chased into traffic and killed because he was gay.

Under current law, the attackers in each of these cases could not be prosecuted for a hate crime for two reasons. First, in order for it to constitute a federal hate crime, a victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting. Second, the current hate crime law does not consider sexual orientation a protected class.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act addresses both these gaps in current law by expanding the definition of a hate crime to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also expands the instances in which federal authorities can prosecute or assist local authorities in prosecuting hate crimes.

Importantly, the bill before the House includes specific language stating that nothing in the bill can be interpreted to prohibit ``expressive conduct'' protected by the First Amendment. In doing so, we have ensured that this legislation in no way impinges on one's constitutional right to freedom of speech or religious expression.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act enjoys the strong support of law enforcement, and has

been endorsed by International Association of Chief of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys Association, as well as 31 state Attorneys General.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. In doing so we are sending a clear message that hate crimes have no place in America.

Mr. Speaker, today there are two distinct messages coming out of Washington. The first message is from a majority of the Congress and underscores impatience with the lack of political progress in Iraq. We call for a new direction, including enforceable benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. The other message is from the White House. The message the President is sending is that America's military commitment in Iraq remains open-ended, no matter what.

The President keeps saying that we're making progress in Iraq. This claim cannot be reconciled with the facts. Nearly everyone agrees that there is no military solution possible in Iraq; rather, the Iraqis must make the political compromises necessary to end the violence.

But where is the progress on the benchmarks that the President himself has endorsed? Where is the agreement to fairly share Iraq's oil wealth among all of Iraq's people? Where is the law reversing the disastrous de-Baathification policy? Where are the promised new election laws? Where is the progress on amending the Iraqi constitution to address longstanding Sunni concerns? The Iraqi government has repeatedly promised action on all of these, but there is little forward movement after many months.

Benchmarks are only real if there are consequences for failure to meet them. Back in January, the President said, and I quote, ``if the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people--and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.'' But by vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the President has made it clear that failure to follow through on the benchmarks will not result in the loss of the White House's support for this open-ended war.

From the beginning, the Bush Administration has been wrong so many times about nearly every aspect of the war in Iraq. Now the President comes to Congress again to ask for yet another blank check. We should not give him one. I urge the House to override the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, last Friday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcalls 236 through 244. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 236, the Sessions Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 237, the Garrett Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 238, the Campbell Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call 239, the McHenry Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 240, the Price Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 241, the Putnam Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 242, the Price Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 243, the motion to recommit H.R. 1257 with instructions. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 244, final passage of H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 518, I rise in strong support of this measure. The issue of waste coming into Michigan from Ontario is one of great concern to the people I represent, and I appreciate Representative Dingell's tireless efforts to move this legislation.

Like the bill approved by the House last year, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency to implement and enforce the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada. The Administrator is required to issue final regulations within 24 months after the date of enactment.

The legislation further requires the Administrator of EPA, when considering whether to consent to a shipment of foreign municipal solid waste to give substantial weight to the views of the recipient State or States, and also consider the impact of the shipment on local recycling programs, landfill capacity, road deterioration, homeland security, public health and the environment, among other factors.

As I mentioned, the bill before the House is nearly identical to the legislation that the House approved last September. Unfortunately, the former leadership of the Senate failed to take up the bill last year, despite bipartisan pleas from Michigan's House delegation urging prompt action. Now that the Senate is under new management, I hope we can at last address this longstanding problem and get a bill to the President's desk for signature.

Our Nation has no closer friend in the world than Canada, but the current trash arrangement in which hundreds of trash trucks cross the border each day on their way to Michigan landfills is simply untenable. The legislation before the House builds on the agreement that Michigan's two Senators negotiated with the government of Ontario last year to reduce municipal waste shipments from Canada over the next four years.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the legislation before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1257, the Shareholder vote on Executive Compensation Act.

Earlier this year, the Ways and Means Committee held a series of hearings on the state of the U.S. economy. We heard from experts across a variety of disciplines and a wide spectrum of political perspectives, and one of the recurring themes we heard from them was that income inequality is rising, and that this trend is eroding the public's confidence in the fundamental fairness of our society and our public policy. Recent data indicate that in 2005, the share of national income going to the top one percent of earners jumped to 19.3 percent, representing the highest degree of income concentration since 1929.

Rising executive compensation is, of course, just one component of this trend, but it is one of the most visible. What are middle-class families who are struggling with the rising costs of health care and higher education to think when they read about CEOs that are given tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars to leave companies whose stock price has fallen precipitously? These executives are not being rewarded for their performance, they are apparently being rewarded for squandering billions of dollars of shareholder value.

Mr. Chairman, corporations are creations of government, and by law, their boards have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders who are the owners of that corporation. A variety of scandals from Enron to options backdating have called into question the independence of boards that are often hand-picked by management, and we have taken steps both through legislation and the regulatory process to strengthen the independence of boards of directors.

The measure before us is a relatively modest additional step to ensure that corporations and their management operate in the interest of shareholders. All we are saying in this bill is that shareholders own these corporations, and they should have an annual, non-binding vote on the corporation's executive compensation disclosures.

The opposition of the minority to this is simply inconsistent. They call for an ``ownership society'' that would all too often shift ever greater risk onto individuals, and then oppose giving individual shareholders a non-binding vote on the compensation of senior executives who are the guardians of their investment. Corporations do not exist to serve the interests of management, they exist to serve the interest of their owners.

Mr. Chairman, it is not too much to ask that hardworking Americans who have made an investment in a company be given the opportunity of an advisory vote on the pay of managers who are essentially their employees. Again, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation is a modest, common-sense reform that will strengthen corporate governance in our society, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise to congratulate Florine Mark on being a recipient of the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit's Jewish Community Boneh Kehillah Award. It is my privilege to applaud Ms. Mark as a deserving community member and friend for her many years of entrepreneurship, community service, and civil activism on a day when she is being acknowledged for her vast achievements.

As President and Chairman of the Board of The WW Group, Inc., Ms. Mark displays a keen business sense and devotion to promoting the physical and mental well-being of her fellow citizens, a commitment that she has worked diligenty to nurture and expand for over 30 years.

In addition to her successful business career, Ms. Mark displays a devotion to the community at large and a gracious heart through her insight and support of local and national organizations on women's issues, healthy lifestyles, and the preservation of our rich cultural heritage. The American Heart Association, Detroit Institute for Children, Detroit Renaissance and Seeds of Peace are just a few of the many organizations that have benefited from her involvement.

Beyond her role as a business leader and pillar of the community, Ms. Mark is also the proud mother of 5 children and 19 grandchildren who share a bond of giving and receiving to each other, their neighbors and community.

I am honored to express my gratitude and admiration to Ms. Mark for the profound impact she has on the lives of men and women around the country and her impact on the Metro-Detroit Community. She truly exemplifies ``Boneh Kehilla''.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Mark on this momentous occasion. May she know of our admiration and warmest wishes for continued success.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate William Clay Ford, Jr., on being a recipient of the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit's ``City of Detroit'' Boneh Kehillah Award. Mr. Ford displays an unwavering devotion, as a business and community leader, to the people and the company that help define Detroit as the Motor City. It is my privilege to acknowledge Mr. Ford for his exemplary commitment to the growth of 21st century innovation and ushering in a renewed sense of community and pride to the citizens of Metro Detroit.

Among the many titles Mr. Ford has held throughout his career with Ford Motor Company, he is most notably recognized for serving as the President and CEO of Ford Motor Company and for his continuing role as executive chairman of the board of directors. Mr. Ford is a proven leader in the automotive industry and a conscientious environmentalist, a combination that allows him to promote technology that improves our lives while investing in Michigan's economic future and preserving our planet.

Mr. Ford displays a commitment to the spread of ideas and humanitarianism that reach far beyond the walls of the boardroom. He humbly utilizes his resources to give back to the community and takes an active role in organizations that promote regional economic revitalization such as Detroit Renaissance and the Detroit Economic Club. Mr. Ford inherited a name that is easily identified with Detroit, but it is his actions and personal convictions that ultimately define him as a spirited leader in our community.

I am honored to express my gratitude and admiration to Mr. Ford. He truly exemplifies ``Boneh Kehillah'' through his on-going efforts to foster a bold plan for the future of Metro Detroit and its workers.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Ford on this momentous occasion. May he know of our admiration and warmest wishes for continued success.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act and urge its passage by the House. I want to compliment Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for making early passage of this legislation a priority. The last Water Resources bill was signed into law over 6 years ago by President Clinton. It is Congress' job to renew this law every 2 years, but for whatever reason, we have been unable to reach agreement with the other body and get a final bill to the President for his signature.

The Nation's water and environmental infrastructure problems won't wait forever. We need to overcome our past differences and move this bill to upgrade and modernize our Federal programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and environmental restoration.

I want to express my thanks to Chairman Oberstar for including a project I requested to authorize Federal funding to implement restoration projects in Lake St. Clair. In the past, Lake St. Clair has been described as ``the forgotten lake.'' No longer. Today, many of my constituents refer to Lake St. Clair as the ``Heart of the Great Lakes.'' We need to protect and restore it. Lake St. Clair is not the largest body of water in the Great Lakes System, but it is absolutely one of the most heavily used portions of the Lakes in terms of fishing, boating and drinking water.

Two years ago, the Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive management plan for Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River. Congress paid for this plan. The recommendations contained in the management plan will help shape Lake St. Clair's future, but only if they are implemented. Having come this far, we can't let the report and its recommendations become another study that sits on a shelf and gathers dust. Everyone, including the federal government, has to step forward and take responsibility for turning these recommendations into action.

Again, I support the bill before the House and urge its adoption.