Bart Gordon

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me first recognize the sincerity of the proponents of this amendment, but let me also say very clearly I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I want to clarify what this amendment is not about. This amendment is not about smoking, whether juvenile or adult smoking. It has nothing to do with smoking. This amendment is not about deficit reduction. It has nothing to do with deficit reduction. Every small family farmer pays an assessment on every pound of tobacco that they grow. This amounts to over $30 million a year that goes to the Treasury, so it has nothing to do in any way with deficit reduction. What it does have something to do with is whether or not small, rural counties and communities in the South can exist. Tobacco is the only crop they can grow in these communities, unlike in Illinois and other communities where they have farms with hundreds of acres, long rows where you get on that tractor, and you drive a half mile and your turn around and you drive back. You cannot do that in these little communities. These are hilly country, rocky country. About the only thing they can grow is tobacco, and that is why the average tobacco patch is only 3.3 acres. It takes a family. It is squat labor. It is the whole family that gets out and works together to get this crop in and then get it in the barn. Without the tobacco, it means that there are no grocery stores, because there is no one to buy groceries. There is no filling stations, because there is nobody to buy gas. There is no pharmacies, because there is no one to go to the drugstore. So make no mistake about it. This amendment is not about deficit reduction. This amendment is not about smoking. It is about allowing small communities in the South to continue to be able to exist and allowing farmers to raise their family and see that they are able to improve their life, just like everyone here wants to see their family's life improved.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, as we begin debate on comprehensive telecommunications reform, this statement offers a unique perspective on one aspect of the industry. Government Can Continue Services With Pay-Per-Call (By Richard J. Gordon, Chairman, Teleservices Industry Association) When Abraham Lincoln was President there were no telegraph machines in the White House. To receive reports from his generals on Civil War battlefields, the President had to walk to the building next door. That building housed the federal government's only telegraph equipment, equipment already commonplace to the railroads and a good many private businesses. Until Herbert Hoover was President, the Oval Office did not have a telephone. By the time there was one on the President's desk, millions already were in heavy use by businesses and private citizens. American businessmen have long been ahead of their governments in accepting, developing and using the latest technology. Today, audiotext, already a four-billion-dollar business in the private sector, finally is getting attention in the public sector. Both state and federal government agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, are taking advantage of pay-per-call. At the Office of Planning and Building in Sacramento, California, citizens can telephone a 900 number, request information by punching in their fax numbers and receive copies of requested documents in about the time it will take the reader to finish this article. Moreover, to provide information on over one million corporations, New York's Department of State operates a 900 number that costs a caller $4.00 per call. This ``teleservice'' keeps seven people busy answering some 500 calls per day. What once cost the State $250,000 yearly to answer telephone inquiries, now is a faster service whose users bear the costs. [[Page E 1464]] To appreciate the value of teleservices, one only has to visit his local Department of Motor Vehicles, Post Office or wait in line or on ``hold for the next available customer service representative.'' To all for whom time is money, pay- per-call to access government is an attractive and economical option. It is not a new idea that those most benefiting from government services should pay a charge. For nearly forty years, gasoline taxes and license fees have, in whole or in part, financed state and federal highway systems. Why do trucks pay higher fees than automobiles? Everyone seems to accept the logic of the answer: they use the highways more and wear them out faster. It is difficult to determine why it has taken so long for government to serve its ``customers'' with efficient pay-per- call applications. Perhaps citizens had become too accustomed to free access, free information and even free publications from their governments. Ironically, we have come to accept that banks and other businesses bill for a myriad of services which were once free-of-charge. Customers now accept that service, and more specifically ``fast'' and ``express'' services, have monetary value. The Contract with America, passed by the new majority in Congress, cuts the cost of government by reducing services. Deferring costs by requiring users to pay for ``instant'' service may be the only way for some government agencies to justify their continuance. Another boost to government lethargy has been the bad rap given the 900 industry through its early and nearly-exclusive use as an adult service. Because of the industry's own determined efforts to protect its services from improper and illegal usage, adult services using 900 numbers virtually have disappeared. Most applications that utilize a 900 number now fall under the category of Business-to-Business Teleservices. Today, every touch-tone telephone is a miniature market. With access to 800 and 900 numbers, callers can order merchandise, obtain personal bank balances, have their voices heard or their votes tallied, and be talked through astonishingly complete menus for ordering an amazing array of goods and services. Once again, the private sector has embraced a new technology, enhanced it with countless unique and practical innovations, significantly improved lives and created profits. Now it is past time for government to assess its own timid samplings, to observe the widespread public uses and applications, and to bring to citizens and taxpayers the efficiencies and economies of broader use of pay-per-call services.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I share with my fellow Members some of my thoughts about one of the most beautiful areas of my district, Macon County, TN. Tucked away on the Tennessee-Kentucky border is a place that has attracted many visitors to enjoy its unique natural features, while still retaining a sense of community for those who call it home. Macon County has endured good times and bad because Macon citizens have a tremendous pride in their community. We all know the strong tobacco tradition in Macon County and tobacco is enjoying one of its strongest years ever. Last year Macon County farmers placed second in the State in burley tobacco production, bringing home more than $11.5 million to boost the local economy. It is the people of Macon County that have made all this hard work possible. The spirit of community, the willingness to always look for new ways to make your community a better place to live is contagious. The Donoho Hotel and the Red Boiling Springs Inn are two examples. They're enjoying a rebirth and the Macon County Chamber of Commerce is working to spread the word to potential tourists about the beauty of Macon County. I am proud of all our efforts and am eager to help write the next, successful chapter of Macon County's history.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, in my brief 1\1/2\ minutes, let me try to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. First of all, there has not been a penny of taxpayer Federal dollars going to the TVA power program since 1959. What little Federal money goes to the TVA goes to carry out Federal mandates. And these Federal dollars, as has been pointed out, have been cut by 28 percent already. So let me point out what are these Federal mandates. Where are these Federal dollars going. TVA manages the Nation's fifth largest river system, using 48 dams to control flooding and maintain the navigability along 652 miles of the Tennessee River. TVA is responsible for keeping up with 250,000 acres of Federal land along with 11,000 miles of environmentally sensitive shoreline, and the Land Between the Lakes, which is a 170,000-acre national recreation area, which is the largest contiguous forest east of the Mississippi River. So to cut these funds any further does not cut the responsibilites, it just shifts it from one pocket to the other. Mr. Chairman, I hope this has cleared up some misunderstandings, and I hope my colleagues will vote to only cut the TVA nonpower funds by 28 percent.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank a devoted resident of my hometown of Murfreesboro and a great friend, Mr. Guy R. Dotson, Sr., for his 26 years of distinguished service as district attorney general for Rutherford and Cannon Counties and to congratulate him on his retirement. A lifelong middle Tennessean, General Dotson was born in Elora, TN. A graduate of Franklin County High School, he received his B.A. from the University of the South and his law degree from the University of Tennessee. General Dotson was appointed district attorney by Gov. Buford Ellington in 1969. He was elected district attorney general in 1970 and re-elected in 1974, 1982 and 1990. He will be missed not only by his associates in the district attorney's office, but also by the police departments of Murfreesboro, Smyrna, LaVergne, Eagleville, and Woodbury along with the sheriff's departments in Rutherford and Cannon Counties. He has served with distinction all the citizens of the 16th Judicial District Rutherford County is indeed losing a valuable leader who has shown all of us what it means to serve and undoubtedly will continue to do so. Rutherford County's loss, however, is a big gain for General Dotson's five grandchildren, who will be the new beneficiaries of his energy and attention. The golf course beckons him as well. Please join me and all other middle Tennesseans in wishing him well in his retirement.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the contributions a middle Tennessee family is making to preserve and further the heritage of an outstanding Tennessee ancestor. Charles T. Cantrell will present his grandfather's Congressional Medal of Honor to American Legion Post 122 during a Tennessee bicentennial celebration scheduled for June 29, 1995. Charles P. Cantrell, a Keltonburg native, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor during the Spanish-American War for acts of bravery. He was a member of the unit that participated in the taking of San Juan Hill, the major stronghold of the Spanish. Without consideration for his own safety, Cantrell rushed to the front lines and rescued the wounded from enemy territory. Cantrell escaped the battle unharmed, and died in 1948 at the age of 74. Until World War I, Cantrell was the only recipient of the Medal of Honor in middle Tennessee. Now, years later, Tennesseans can personally, share the history that surrounded the events of Cantrell's life-changing day. The family's contribution will be displayed in a special case at a local library with other Spanish-American War memorabilia. I ask you to join me today in honoring Cantrell's sacrifices and contributions to his country, as well as his family's.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, few get the chance to know someone who exemplifies the very meaning of the word service. I am honored to be able to tell you about this man who has given so much to all of us. Dr. Bob Fowler learned the true meaning of service to his country through his military work and the true meaning of service to the men and women of our communities through his work as a physician. From day one, he was dedicated to both. As a young man, he hitchhiked to Fort Bragg, NC hoping to join the 82d Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. He was placed in the infantry instead, but got his chance to work with that acclaimed division 45 years later, as the oldest combat soldier in the Persian Gulf war. Dr. Fowler served both the 82d and 101st Airborne Divisions on the front lines. By then he was a combat surgeon because following his World War II service as a private, Fowler attended the University of North Carolina and Duke University Medical Schools. Following graduation he continued his Army service in the Medical Corps, serving as a first lieutenant in the Korean war. After active duty, he continued to practice general surgery, but he still retained a love for military service. In 1987, Dr. Fowler joined the Tennessee Army National Guard as a battalion surgeon. During that period he used the kind of practical and creative thinking that merged his many talents and helped so many people. He came up with what is now known as MediGuard, a system that allows Guard medical facilities to be used to help indigent patients and rescue missions when the staff and facilities are not busy. The concept has been so successful it is now used nationally, but to Fowler it is just another way to help others. That is the kind of spirit that has made our country and our communities strong. The dedication has not gone unnoticed, even now upon his retirement. Gov. Don Sundquist has promoted Dr. Fowler to the rank of major general of the Tennessee National Guard. It is a well deserved honor for him and a wonderful moment for all of us, who continue receiving the benefit of his talent, experience, and dedication. I am proud to call Dr. Bob Fowler a friend.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, WCTE-TV in Cookeville, TN, provides a great service to the television viewers of Putnam County and the Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee. The enclosed article from the New York Times shows how the small, but capable staff juggle many responsibilities and produce quality local programming. [From the New York Times, Apr. 17, 1995] Where Public TV Is More Than a Political Football (By Laurie Mifflin) Cookeville, TN.--When people argue about public television in Washington, Boston, New York or Los Angeles, they talk about ``Sesame Street,'' ``Nova'' and ``Frontline''; about whether the political programming is too partisan, about whether opera and ballet are too elitist, and about slashing station budgets of $100 million a year or more. Here, too, in Cookeville, in the Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee, public television means ``Sesame Street,'' ``Nova'' and ``Frontline.'' But political programming means covering monthly meetings of the Putnam County Commission. Cultural programming means the Smithville Fiddlers Jamboree and the Tennessee Tech Faculty Brass Quintet. The budget runs a little over $1 million. And the station consists of three rooms and a truck. The boxy WCTE-TV truck is parked beneath the iron girders and concrete risers of the Tennessee Tech football stadium, the station's home. It is a ``remote truck,'' divided inside into three cramped carrels lined with audio and video editing equipment, the kind of truck television crews use when they cover events away from the studio. This remote truck does venture out--to cover Tech football or basketball road games--but as soon as it is parked under the stadium, thick hanks of blue cable are pulled out and connected to other cables leading to the station's control room, because the truck doubles as the station's main editing facility. So when Donna Castle and Rick Wells return from videotaping teenagers in Cane Creek Park who are testing leaf and water samples in a regional ``Envirothon'' contest, for example, Mrs. Castle climbs into the truck and sits down to edit a Hot Puddin' Cake recipe for that week's ``Cumberland Cooking With Cathy'' show. Mr. Wells heads to the ``studio'' on the other side of the parking-bay wall--a windowless 20-by-30-foot room with cinder-block walls and klieg lights sprouting from the ceiling--to operate a camera focused on teams of jittery high school students competing in the Upper Cumberland Academic Bowl. And when that taping starts, Mrs. Castle will have to stop editing because David Dow will need the truck's control panel to direct the three-camera Academic Bowl production. WNET in New York and WGBH in Boston may be the signature stations of the Public Broadcasting Service because they produce many of its best programs, but the mom-and-pop stations of small-town America have deep roots in the public television heritage, too. The two dozen or so smallest PBS stations in the country receive 30 to 40 percent of their budgets from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so eliminating Federal financing could force them to close up shop. But ``zeroing out'' now appears unlikely; when Congress returns from Easter recess, the House and Senate will have to reconcile their versions of bills to cut back financing, with the compromise likely to be in the 10-to-15-percent range. But for Donna and Richard Castle, the operators of WCTE, Channel 22, in Cookeville, even a 10 percent cut will hurt their bare-bones budget of $1.16 million (which includes 18 salaries). And because it would be cheaper simply to pick up PBS's national programming, Channel 22 would probably cut back the thing that makes it distinctive: its local programming. WCTE was founded in 1978 as part of the state Department of Education, and Mr. Castle, 58, the general manager, still calls it ``educational TV'' as often as he calls it ``public TV.'' The station offers instructional programs used by local schools and by parents who teach their children at home, as well as programs informing the community about local government, local schools, local cultural affairs and local businesses. ``We're here for the public, and I try to remember it all the time,'' Mrs. Castle said. ``If people around here want to see the Smithville Fiddlers Jamboree instead of something from the Theater of the Rhinoceros in San Francisco, that's

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days and months Congress will be making big decisions about the way our economy works. These decisions will have a lasting impact on how America meets the 21st century and whether our workers and companies will have the tools to compete. I take my responsibility to make sure that America goes into the future strong and prepared very seriously. America has the most skilled, productive, and dedicated workers in the world. Despite vocal nay-sayers' predictions about the American economy declining in the face of international competition, I have found the opposite to be true. I did not have to go far to find proof. There are 6,000 hard-working people in Smyrna, TN who go to work every day at the Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corp. with the attitude that ``every day we want to do better than we did yesterday.'' Those words came from Nissan CEO and President Jerry Benefield who has proven that rewarding hard work and making sure that employees know they have the power to create--or break--their company. Those Smyrna Nissan employees have reason to be proud. They have built the most productive car and truck assembly plant in America for the second year in a row. One of the secrets of their success is attitude. Another is their extensive training and know-how. Those are the two keys that set not only the Smyrna plant apart from other American plants, but also what sets American companies apart from the rest of the world. Smyrna employees assemble a car in just 2.2 worker days, setting the benchmark for national productivity. I want to congratulate and thank the 6,000 of you who earned this recognition on behalf of Smyrna. It goes to show that Tennessee, and America, are poised to take the lead in innovation and productivity. All of you are obviously going above and beyond just doing your job-- and doing it very successfully.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a corporation in LaVergne, TN, who has been justly rewarded for their continuing commitment to service and quality. Whirlpool Corp. has received the 1995 Partners in Progress Award, based on service, product quality, market performance, and customer responsiveness. This is the fourth year in a row Whirlpool has been recognized for the PIP Award, which is given only to the top 1 percent of Sears' suppliers. Whirlpool, home to just over 2,400 employees, makes its mark each year by producing the very best in air control products. Each employee is to be commended for their role in ensuring the success of Whirlpool through their attention to product safety, dependability, and performance. Please join me today in congratulating these workers in Tennessee for their tremendous accomplishment.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight merely a few of the countless accomplishments in my dear friend Morton Gould's distinguished career, recently capped off by his receipt of the Pulitzer Prize for music composition. A New York native, Gould began this career at the early age of six, when his first composition was published. His tutelage in piano and composition continued, and by age 21, he was conducting and arranging weekly orchestra radio programs for the WOR Mutual Network. Perhaps Gould's most performed instrumental piece is his ``Pavanne,'' from his ``Second Symphonette.'' Other works familiar to all of us include ``Latin-American Symphonette,'' ``Spirituals for Orchestra,'' ``Tap Dance Concerto,'' ``Jekyll and Hyde Variations,'' and ``American Salute.'' The Library of Congress has commissioned his work, as well as the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center, The New York City Ballet, and the American Ballet Theater. He has composed scores for Broadway musicals, films, and both television movies and series. Conductors worldwide have had the pleasure of directing performances of his compositions, and, as conductor, Gould has appeared with major orchestras in the United States, Japan, Australia, and Israel. Some of Gould's other awards include a Grammy Award, several Grammy nominations, the 1983 Gold Baton Award, the 1985 Medal of Honor for Music from the National Arts Club, and the Kennedy Center Honors in 1994. He received the Pulitzer Prize this year for ``Stringmusic,'' which was composed at the [[Page E1007]] request of Director Rostropovich, to commemorate his last season as director of the Washington, DC, National Symphony Orchestra. Gould served as president of ASCAP [American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers] from 1986 to 1994. He has been an ASCAP member since 1935 and a board member since 1959. Certainly we have all benefited over the years from his work and know that future generations will benefit as well. Please join me today in honoring one of America's truest virtuosos.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, in 1987, Congress created the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator as part of its amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The goal of this office was to negotiate an agreement with a host site for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Congressional action in 1994 terminated authority for the negotiator's office. Today, I am submitting for the Record, the last report to Congress by Richard H. Stallings, negotiator, of the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. For the past 15 months Mr. Stallings and his staff have worked to help resolve our Nation's spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal problem. This office held numerous expert discussions which produced valuable scientific information on possible future uses of spent nuclear fuel. In addition, Mr. Stallings was instrumental in designing and improving the economic development opportunities of the Department of Energy's multipurpose canister [MPC] Program as an integral part of the interim storage facility. As a result of their efforts, I am confident that Congress will be better prepared to consider legislation concerning the management of spent nuclear fuel. As negotiator, Mr. Stallings also demonstrated the ability for the Department of Energy to develop meaningful communications with potential host States and increased community awareness and understanding of the emotional issues surrounding nuclear fuel. While the authority of Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator ended before a host site was designated, I believe it is important for Congress to continue in these educational efforts and open dialog. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Mr. Stallings for his work as nuclear waste negotiator. His findings and expertise are greatly appreciated and will prove invaluable as Congress moves forward with our Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Program for a permanent repository and temporary storage facility. Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, Washington, DC February 8, 1995. The Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am submitting the following as the last report to Congress by the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. As a result of a legal cloud over our authority to continue operations, I terminated the mission of the Office on January 21, 1995. In closing the Office prior to completing its legislated mission, I leave with a sense of lost opportunity, although much was accomplished over my short fifteen month term. I hope that this report will encourage those who still believe in finding ways for the Federal government and the states to work together for solutions to challenging and controversial public policy issues. When Congress created the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator in 1987 as part of its amendments to the Nuclear Waster Policy Act of 1982, it recognized the possibility that the storage and disposal of the nation's civilian nuclear waste could be accomplished through cooperation. By giving the Office the authority to negotiate an agreement with a state of tribe, Congress was essentially saying to the states, ``Reliance on Federal supremacy may not be the only way that we as a nation should deal with this issue.'' Perhaps the legacy of this Office should be that we demonstrated that the Federal government can work cooperatively and constructively with the states on this issues, if we are only willing to put forth the effort. the office i assumed in november 1993 Upon confirmation by the Senate in November of 1993, I took charge of an Office that had been in operation since September of 1990. My predecessor had remained in Office until June of 1993, but with the change of Administrations following the 1992 election, the Office was in essentially a suspended operational status from November of 1992 until I was confirmed a year later. This is important for four reasons. First, for an Office whose entire term is four years and five months, a year hiatus is a very long time. Second, the lost year was particular Office, dealing with such a controversial issue, must make publicly recognizable progress if it is to make any progress at all. Third, one of the four tribes that was officially participating in the negotiated siting program when I took Office, the Mescalero Apache tribe in New Mexico, had become frustrated over that year with the lack of progress and funding and was looking to other opportunities. And fourth and perhaps most importantly, I found that with the passage of that year whatever hope the nuclear utility industry, the Department of Energy, and Congress had had for the mission of the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator was gone. I received general support from these groups, but found their energies focussed more on either a legislated solution to temporary storage, abandonment of Federal away-from- reactor temporary storage altogether, or the development of a private interim storage facility on tribal lands. With this as the backdrop I committed to making something happen. Congress was on the right track in creating this Office and it deserved the best chance it could get to be successful. reinventing the office The siting program that I took over had relied on what I term a ``trash for cash'' approach. In return for hosting a waste storage facility, the state or tribe would be rewarded handsomely with payments and benefits that bore no necessary relationship to the facility. This approach presented me in November of 1993 with one frustrated tribe, and three tribes still willing to consider whatever program I came up with. There remained no viable non-tribal interests. I knew that to even enjoy the ``possibility'' of coming to an agreement and successfully siting a facility, perceptions had to change and the Office had to be essentially ``reinvented''. I concluded that the reinvention needed to concentrate on two aspects of the mission, making sure that the potential hosts the Office worked with were inclusive of those that presented the best opportunities for siting, and developing a sufficiently defined presentation of facility and benefits to permit meaningful evaluation and consideration. Ultimate success would depend on whether the siting opportunity was considered by the localities where siting a temporary storage facility made practical sense, and whether the opportunity they considered was real and worthy of consideration. new approach to potential hosts With respect to the potential hosts, I committed to continuing to work with the four tribes that were already in the program, while seeking to approach potential hosting opportunities that did not involve siting a facility on a ``green field'', green field being a site that had not previously experienced any environmental degradation. This resulted in efforts being directed at closed military bases and facilities and laboratories owned by the Department of Energy. I did not have the time to conduct a ``volunteer'' program. I do not think the voluntary approach to siting works for this type of an issue. I think you need to tell potential hosts that they are likely to be qualified, and ask for their consideration. seeking to change perceptions As to the presentation of facility and benefits, I knew that much work would need to be done, and I found that it wasn't until the fall of 1994 that I had a presentation with which I was comfortable. In my confirmation I asserted my conclusion and firm belief that the transportation and storage of nuclear waste was safe. We have the technology and experience. This was a radical departure from my predecessor, who proposed to provide grant funding to potential hosts to allow them to determine for themselves whether transportation and storage was safe. I believed that as Negotiator, it was essential to take a clear stand in order to be able to interact with elected officials and the public with any credibility. Had I not been able to take that stand, I would not have taken the job. Given that the handling and storage of spent fuel was safe, and recognizing that the perception of a storage facility as nothing more than a ``dump'' (to coin a popular media term), I wanted to know if it was possible for something to be done with the spent fuel as opposed to just storing it. For the next several months following my confirmation, I conducted an extensive evaluation of whether spent fuel had value. I held a roundtable discussion on February 10, 1994, with a dozen scientists who were working on projects utilizing spent fuel. The report that was issued after that roundtable documented that spent fuel has potential value that will almost certainly be realized at some time in the future. The projects that were perhaps the closest to being practical at this time were those involving food irradiation and ozone production, and of course this concept of value did not even consider the potential value associated with reprocessing. My efforts to pursue this question were widely misinterpreted. This can best be summed up by my Deputy, Robert Mussler, being told by a utility executive upon hearing of this idea, ``Don't tell me spent fuel isn't waste!'' Rather than trying to somehow convert a temporary storage facility into an instant research park, I was trying to get others to think about spent fuel differently, by having the Office think about it differently. To my knowledge no one had ever proffered the idea that spent fuel might have value besides reprocessing, and I believe my willingness to address this possibility in a direct, public manner, changed the debate. I also believe that technology will advance and the day will come when the value of spent fuel is recognized. Developing a Concise Presentation Having dealt in a fairly short period of time with the perception and approach to spent fuel, and its storage and management, I set out to put together a concise presentation that could be reasonably and fairly considered, evaluated, and pursued or rejected by elected officials. This took more time than I had expected, but in the end it was worth it. Out of a facilitated workshop on March 23, 1994, came the idea that the Department of Energy's multi- purpose canister (MPC) program may present an economic development opportunity that could be coupled with the temporary storage facility. We worked to develop the idea, and coordinated that development with the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at the Department of Energy. The MPC Program involves manufacturing and assembling Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified containers for the handling and dry storage of spent fuel. The program projects a need for 10,000 canisters, and is a 3 to 5 billion dollar project. By September 1994 we had focussed our efforts on refining the presentation of the economic development opportunities that the MPC program presented to a potential host. The overriding consideration in the development of this idea was that whatever part of the MPC program might go to a state, it must make sense. We were not proposing the creation of a heavy foundry industry in a state that did not already have one. In such states the focus would rather be on assembly and inspection. Although the presentation contained a number of other elements to describe the facility and other associated benefits, I felt that the MPC element was the most important in conveying the message that this was a genuine opportunity worthy of consideration. As I noted earlier, this presentation was completed to my satisfaction in the fall of 1994. changing the approach to financial assistance Another aspect of the program that needed attention when I took Office was the way that financial assistance was provided to potential hosts to support their participation in the negotiated siting program. My predecessor has relied on grants administered by the Department of Energy, and at about the time I was confirmed, a major element of that grant program had been deleted by Congress. I decided that relying on the Department of Energy to provide financial assistance to potential hosts was not the best way to operate and concluded that what we really should do is to instead directly enter into cooperative agreements with those potential hosts. The cooperative agreement is a funding mechanism that anticipates interest and participation by both parties in the activities funded. This fit much better with the way I intended to interact with potential hosts. Since our budget did not provide for the funding of cooperative agreements, I approached the Director of the Office of Civilian Waste Management for help. The Director and I worked out the transfer of an initial $250,000 to the Office to fund cooperative agreements that I might enter into. This ended up working out very well, giving us the flexibility and responsiveness we needed to establish and maintain credible relationships. With the cooperative agreement funding mechanism in place, and the development of the presentation that described the temporary storage facility and the associated economic development opportunities that the MPC program could bring with it, I had what I needed to begin direct discussions with those potential hosts where a temporary storage facility made practical sense. It was a presentation that used an overhead projector, and it was a very effective communication vehicle. Unfortunately, with the closing of the Office I was not able to give this presentation to all of those who I felt needed to hear it. In this first part of the report I have discussed how I changed, or reinvented, the negotiated siting program. I am convinced that this was a viable program, open to consideration by many governors and state officials. In the second part of the report I will discuss the chronology of interactions with potential hosts. I will then conclude with a brief discussion of the circumstances of the closure of the Office.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of a dedicated group of young men who worked together in the true spirit of sportsmanship to achieve a long-awaited goal. The group is the Riverdale High School football team of Murfreesboro, TN, and the goal was winning the State 5-A football championship. These men of Riverdale High trained vigorously, played tirelessly, and deserve recognition for a job well done. I congratulate each member of the team, their head coach, Gary Rankin, and all the assistant coaches, managers, trainers, and team doctors. I know they won't soon forget their milestone. The players are true champions: Emil Michell, Gerald Griffin, Corey Carney, Carlos Tigg, Marcus Smith, Eric Locke, Larry Floyd, Johnta Martin, Ryan Miller, Michael Knox, Craig Hill, Delaney Solomon, Joe Hill, Jerome Verge, Gabriel Nelson, Alvin Duke, Fernando Bryant, Howard Henderson, Elgene Porter, Ryan Maloney, Ron Smith, Jeremy Maurer, Kevin Litchford, Chris Long, Kelly Faulkner, Keith Jordon, Chris Barnett, Reggie Smith, William Henry, Andrew Smotherman, Brian Davis, Greg Smith, James Baxter, Doug Austin, Andy Risner, Joel Young, Shawn Bowers, Billy McKinley, Justin Tate, Brett Martin, Jerod Wade, Brian Barnett, Jeff Lee, Robb Soapes, Todd Harris, Michael Nobles, David Coppeans, Craig Underwood, Travis Brown, J.R. Crockett, Chuck Harris, Joe Oliver, Shavis Randell, Brian Austin, Antron Peebles, Jason Staples, David Merrill, David Hennessee, Matt Austin, John Simpkins, Phil Sisambath, Kevin David, and Ryan White

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two outstanding individuals from the Sixth District of Tennessee who are being honored upon their retirement. Drs. Phyllis and Ray Phillips have made tremendous contributions to the field of higher education, and their leadership has been invaluable. By their very example, Ray and Phyllis Phillips have committed their lives to helping others learn. They have taught in Tennessee and Alabama, and their talents have taken them as far away as Augsberg, Germany to lead and participate in the American schools program. Phyllis Phillips has shared her expertise in speech pathology, audiology, and speech communication through almost 50 years of teaching in elementary and secondary schools. In 1983 she joined Cumberland University in Lebanon TN, and in her 12-year tenure, developed a working adult degree program and helped develop the Cumberland University Fine Arts Council. She is responsible for helping countless children and adults overcome their battles with speech and hearing problems. The board of trustees of Cumberland University named Dr. Phyllis Phillips ``Professor Emeritus'' in recognition of her tremendous contributions to education, speech pathology, and communication. Dr. Ray Phillips earned his undergraduate degree from Cumberland University in 1941. His love for his alma mater never left him, and, in 1983, he returned to Cumberland with his wife to assume the vice presidency for academic affairs. He assisted my colleague from Tennessee, Bob Clement, then president of the university, in establshing the institution as a 4-year degree program. In 1991, he was named the 23d president of the university. Enrollments during his administration were recordbreaking, and he aided in the development of the sports medicine and fine arts programs. Dr. Phillips was honored with his wife by the board at Cumberland in 1994. He was named ``President Emeritus'' and ``Professor Emeritus'' for his outstanding service. I join with those at Cumberland University and Tennesseans all across the State in thanking the Phillips' for their tireless dedication and enumerable contributions. We wish for them a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise as someone who is a supporter of products liability reform, not just in this Congress, but in past Congresses. I supported the bipartisan bill last year because I do not think status quo is satisfactory. However, I am disappointed that this House has been required to work under a gag rule that has gagged amendments, has gagged this House from fully discussing this issue, and has really gagged the American people from having a full discussion of this issue and allowing us to put better amendments on the floor. So I rise with a motion to recommit that I think improves this bill in two years: One, to put back in the bill a provision that will require foreign manufacturers to designate an agent in this country. The reason for that is that American consumers are going to be disadvantaged if they are the recipient of some harm by goods in this country by a foreign manufacturer and then cannot get service on them, and American business is going to be at a disadvantage if they are going to be responsible for liability in this country, however foreign manufacturers would not because they do not have an agent to be served. Mr. Speaker, the second part of this motion to recommit will raise the punitive damage level from $250,000 to a more reasonable $1 million for outrageous conduct. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GORDON. In its present form, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in summary, let me state this motion to recommit offers us a chance to protect U.S. citizens harmed by foreign products, allow American business a chance to compete against foreign manufacturers on an equal footing, and keep the most dangerous products in this country off the market. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the Conyers-Dingell motion to recommit.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a support of products liability reform, not only this year, but also in the past. Last year I joined the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and many others in a bipartisan bill, House Resolution 1510, to reform products liability, and that is why I am so concerned today that we are met with this rule that is going to gag a true debate on products liability reform and maybe put it at jeopardy, and why is that? Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Republican leadership is going to such extremes to break a contract that they had with the American people? That contract said there would be full and open debate on this issue. Why are they breaking that contract? Are they breaking it because there is not enough time to debate this? Well, no, that cannot be the case because just last night they announced that we are not going to be in session on Friday--I am sorry; we are going to go out of session on Friday at 3 o'clock. We are not going to be in session on Monday, we are not going to be in session Tuesday until 5 o'clock, and we are not going to be in session next Friday. So clearly there is plenty of time to debate this next week. I think we can work more than 2 hours. Is it because they are trying to stop some partisan shenanigans? No, that is not the case because they are also not allowing some amendments from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] who is a very capable chairman of the subcommittee that brought forth this bill. They are not allowing amendments by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], their own Member, once again who is one of the subcommittee chairmen in the Committee on the Judiciary--as well as a number of other Republican amendments. So why are they blocking, why are they gagging, this rule? Well, the only thing I can find out, Mr. Speaker, is they are gagging this rule because it is such an extreme bill that they are afraid to have debate for the American public to hear about it, for their own Members to come forward with their own amendments. So I think the question today, and I know it is very difficult for Republicans when their leadership clamps down on them and says, ``You've got to toe the line,'' and there may be threats and may be retribution. I know it is tough to be able to step forward. But important bill. Mr. Speaker, the questions before my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are: ``Are they going to be lackeys for their leadership or conduits for their constituents?'' ``Are they going to be robots for their rulers or defenders of their districts?'' ``Are they going to be servants for their sovereign, or are they going to be supporters of their citizens?'' We will have that answer today, so I urge a defeat of this rule so that we can come back with a rule with open debate so that Democrats, and Republicans, and the American people can all participate in this and get a products liability reform that this country deserves and needs.

Mr. GORDON

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent and special individual, Jimmy Earle, upon his induction to the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame. His selection should come as no surprise as he has been successful everywhere he has coached. A graduate of Middle Tennessee State University, Jimmy began his basketball coaching career in 1958 at Algood High School in Putnam County, TN. After 1 year, he became head coach at Smithville High School in DeKalb County compiling a 73-17 record. He then stepped up to the college ranks as head basketball coach at Martin Methodist College in Pulaski, TN. At Martin College he once again produced winning teams with a record of 74-29. His teams also won three Dixie Conference Championships in 4 years. In 1965, he joined the Middle Tennessee State University coaching staff as assistant basketball coach and head baseball coach. As head coach of the baseball team, his 1968 squad won the Ohio Valley Conference championship and he was voted conference Coach of the Year. Jimmy was elevated to MTSU's head basketball coach in 1969 and for the next 10 years served in that capacity. Once again his winning tradition continued as he led his teams to two OVC championships and two trips to the NCAA tournament. In 1975 he became the first coach in school history to take a basketball team to the NCAA tournament. He has served as MTSU's athletic director and as an observer of Southeastern Conference basketball officials. I have known, worked with, and admired Jimmy Earle for almost 30 years. As a graduate of MTSU, I am extremely aware of his many contributions to my alma meter and community. His selection to the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame is well deserved. Tennessee will long reap the benefits of his many years of service.