John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we have here a bill which has merit, limited. We have a bill which is directed at solving a problem which really does not exist. We have need to address the major problem of the universal service fund, which may very well be drying up under this, which will result in significant cost increases to inner city dwellers and to residents of rural areas. It is a shame that we are not addressing the more important questions that we need to address, rather than to respond in this hasty fashion to a problem which really does not exist. The first application for this kind of relief had begun very shortly after the FCC made Internet charges no longer possible back in the 1980s. They have had many applications for this kind of thing since and have never once accorded any reality to those charges, so I think it would be better that we address real problems rather than fictitious ones. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291. The bill is intended to make sure that the individual who logs on to the Internet will not be charged by the minute for the privilege of doing so. That is a worthy goal. I would observe, however, that the situation before us is still somewhat Kafkaesque and does indeed participate of the rather wry humor of that kind of story. I would note that one of the things that has triggered our interest in this matter has been a story that has been going around on the Internet about a Congressman by the name of Schnell who has a piece of legislation which says that people will be charged by the minute for the privilege of using Internet. I would note that Mr. Schnell is entirely fictitious, and I am curious why we are responding to an imaginary piece of legislation which is sponsored by a fictitious Congressman who does not exist? I would note that many Congressional offices have been bombarded with an insidious e-mail campaign over the past year denouncing the fictitious legislation introduced by Mr. Schnell, who does not exist, which would accomplish precisely the opposite result of the bill we consider today. I only hope that the passage of H.R. 1291 will finally extinguish this cybermyth for once and all. I am not convinced, however, that mounting a massive legislative counterattack on a fictitious bill introduced by a make-believe Congressman is the best use of the time of this House, particularly when the subject of that bogus bill, if it were actually introduced, is so contrary to the public interest, that it would have zero chance of success in this legislative body. My puzzlement extends further to the speed with which the leadership has rushed this legislation to the floor. What we are considering today is a fabricated solution to an imaginary problem, yet the leadership seems to believe that this virtual bill is so important that the Committee on Commerce was asked to dispense with the regular order and bypass subcommittee consideration. I find it quite amazing that a phantom Congressman by the name of Schnell has more success in jumpstarting the legislative process than those of us here by actual election of the people. I only regret that Congressman Schnell is not a conferee on some of the more important legislation currently languishing in the conferences between the House and the Senate. Certainly our constituents should know that the Congress has no intention of installing a meter on their use of the Internet and that this legislation will alleviate their concern in that regard, even though it is prompted by the existence, as I have said, of a fictitious bill sponsored by a nonexistent Congressman. However, I am disappointed that the majority refuses to seize an opportunity here to address a greater and a more genuine threat to consumer pocketbooks; that is, the very real possibility that new services such as Internet telephony may evade the responsibility of contributing to support the Universal Service Fund, a fund that ensures that all Americans have access to affordable telephone service. These services will continue to migrate from traditional networks to the Internet and unless we act, the Universal Service Fund will be left to wither on the vine. That spells significant trouble for local phone rates for all consumers, but particularly for those who live in rural areas and the working poor or those who live in big cities. I would observe these are the same Americans who are stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide and are least able to take advantage of high-tech alternatives. Unfortunately, in our haste to get this legislation to the floor that solves, as I have mentioned, an imaginary problem, we squandered the opportunity to address one that is all too real, and that is the prices which Americans will pay for local telephone service if today's disparate regulatory treatment is permitted to continue. Whether a service is offered by the Internet or through a traditional telephone network, the attendant obligations to support the universal service should be the same. I hope the majority will address this serious inequity with due haste so that the American people can be duly protected against the sharp rise in the price for one of their most essential communications needs, and that is plain, old-fashioned telephone service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, certainly the budget process could benefit from useful progressive reform. However, the bill we are considering is neither useful nor progressive. It can properly be described as deform. As long as the majority lacks the political courage to set realistic spending caps, we will continue to see the abuse of the budget process that we have become accustomed to under Republican control of the Congress. Where more than $34 billion, including the cost of the census, is declared an ``emergency.'' These ``emergencies'' are nothing but an absolute circumvention of the budget process and a parliamentary exercise to evade hard choices. Let history be our guide and let us examine how the budget process has operated under Republican control. I would observe that last year Congress failed to even adopt a budget resolution for the first time since the Budget Act was signed into law. Why, because the budget process was broken? Hardly. Because the Republican majority in Congress could not agree with itself on a budget resolution. Rather than negotiate a bipartisan document, the majority chose not to draft a budget at all. This unprecedented failure is not an indictment of the budget process but rather of the majority's incompetence. In the 104th Congress, under the leadership of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican majority could not agree with the President on the budget, failed to pass the regular 13 appropriations bills on time, and proceeded to shut down the government for 28 days. Why, because the budget process was broken? Hardly. Because the Republican majority was unwilling to compromise and negotiate in good faith with the President. Like little children, the majority took their toys and went home. This was not a result of a flawed budget process but of flawed leadership in the Congress. The Republican majority, having learned their harsh lesson from the rebuke of the public for such fiscal recklessness, reversed course in the 105th Congress and gave in on everything. The result was an unseemly, bloated omnibus bill that contained everything--including the kitchen sink. Why, because the budget process was broken? Hardly. It was another example of the irresponsible manner in which the majority runs the Congress and once again demonstrated their remarkable inability to govern. H.R. 853 continues in this rich tradition of flawed proposals and failed ideas. It should rightly and properly be relegated to the scrap heap, to reside next to the Contract with America, where it will, with good fortune and the good Lord's mercy, rust in peace. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill so we can move on to the people's business.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for the wonderful help he has been in this difficult matter and express my thanks to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for that. I would like to observe that we will be making further communications with the office of the Members both by Dear Colleague and electronically, so that they will be fully informed of this. I repeat, the chartered aircraft will be leaving tomorrow at 3:15 by bus from the Capitol steps; the actual time of departure from the aircraft will be from Reagan National Airport at 4 p.m. It is anticipated that the return will be about 1 o'clock in the morning the next day. I do thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for his kind words. I want to pay tribute to him for his fine leadership in this matter. This has been a team effort. I also want to pay a particularly friendly tribute to my old friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the committee. He and I have worked together on conservation matters for about 40 years. He has never been found wanting where there was an important, a wise, and a necessary action in the field of conservation. This body and the Nation owe him a great debt for his wisdom, his balance, his judgment, his courage, and his integrity. I am an admirer of his, and I salute him for what he has done on this matter. I also want to pay tribute to my good friends, the gentlemen from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin and Mr. John, who have done a great deal of work to bring us to where we are. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is not always in agreement with us on this bill, but I want to say that he has done a great deal to improve it from the standpoint of the property owners. It is a better piece of legislation from their standpoint by reason of the enactment of this legislation and by reason of the fact that we have worked together. I want to say a word of tribute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), who is the other among us who worked so hard to bring us to where we are. We have here a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is perhaps the most bipartisan piece of legislation that we will see in this Congress. It is one on which a lot of people have worked together to iron out differences to come forward with a piece of legislation upon which they could agree. Is it perfect? No. No piece of legislation is. Is it good? Yes. It is better than that, it is very, very good. I would call the attention of my colleagues to a fact. In 100 years this Nation, at the end of this century, will have 370 million people. We are going to be crowded out at the seams. It is going to be a terrible place if we do not do something to begin to save open spaces, to preserve places where people can recreate and enjoy, and where we can actually say that this generation, who are the conservators of the land for the future and who are the people who are borrowing this land from those who will follow us, have done the job that we needed to do and we should have done to provide for the quality of life which all of us have known as we have grown up and as we have lived here. This is an enormous challenge, but this legislation provides the money in all areas. I have heard some talk and some complaints about what this is going to do to the West. I do want my colleagues to know that the Western Governors have come out and said something. I want Members to hear it, because they are not people who are not sensitive to the needs and concerns of the people they serve. Here is what they said at the Western Governors Association, Benjamin Cayetano and Dirk Kempthorne from Idaho, a former colleague of ours in the Senate: ``CARA makes good economic, ecological and political sense. On behalf of the WGA, we urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 701,'' and a similar statement on behalf of all of the Governors. I urge my colleagues to endorse this legislation. It is important, it is good, it is in the public interest, and future generations will thank us. Mr. Chairman, today is landmark day in the history of American natural resource protection. Today, we have before us H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or ``CARA''. It is the product of bipartisan cooperation, compromise, and just plain hard work. Writing major legislation is never easy, and I am not aware of any significant environmental bill that passed without rigorous debate. However, I consider it a privilege to stand before you today in the company of my colleagues who have contributed to much of this effort. Chairman Young deserves our credit and thanks for the courage, strength and leadership he has demonstrated time and again during the past two years. His Ranking Member, George Miller, came to the table and found a way to seal and hold the deal. It wasn't so long ago that people said such a deal could never be done. But now that folks on both sides of the environmental movement are finished scratching their heads, they've rallied around CARA because it's needed, it's sound, it's bipartisan, and it's affordable. Don and George have done a masterful job of holding together the CARA coalition. Their work deserves the support of every member of this body. I also want to thank the other Members who devoted scores of hours to creating CARA, including Rep. Billy Tauzin, Rep. Chris John, Rep. Bruce Vento, Rep. Tom Udall and more than 300 colleagues who have ratified our work with their cosponsorship. I also want to thank the many organizations who have endorsed CARA, sent us letters and cards, made phone calls, and made sure that citizens' voices were heard throughout this process. In particular, I would like to recognize for their activist leadership Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, the Trust for Public Lands, The Nature Conservancy, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Recreation and Park Association, the Izaak Walton League, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, The National Wildlife Federation, the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, the Wilderness Society, Ducks Unlimited, and the Coastal States Organization for their hard work and dedication throughout this process. Mr. Chairman, some people will assert that this bill is some sort of ``huge federal land grab'', that it ``breaks the Federal Treasury''; that it ``removes local control.'' Such contentions are nonsense. We do not pretend to have crafted the perfect bill. And I'm certain that there will be good changes made before it is signed into law. My hope is that we resist the temptation to hastily make a good bill perfect, and instead allow the legislative process to do its job. What does CARA mean for the Nation? It means a renewal and extension of a commitment made by Congress more than a generation ago to reinvest federal revenues from outer continental shelf oil and gas production in our public lands, their maintenance and care. It also means meeting our standing commitment to historic preservation, while making new investments in coastal protection, wildlife, urban and suburban parks, and other modest programs which make will make a real difference when combined with state and local efforts to make our towns and cities more livable places. Every state benefits greatly by the passage of this legislation. I expect that by the time this legislation is enacted, some states may benefit even more. CARA is widely backed by thousands of organizations--large and small--and by individuals who care about access to green space and recreation in places near and far from home. Today's Detroit Free Press, representing the views of many positive newspaper editorials around the country, said it best: ``For folks who may rarely or never see a monumental piece of national land, it will be like bringing a monument home.'' To my colleagues who haven't read their hometown papers yet today, I urge you to look carefully. You'll probably find similar sentiments from your own editorial boards which know how much our hikers, bikers, little league players, and their mothers and fathers value the resources CARA will provide. In my own state of Michigan, we can expect an investment of $59.9 million each year during the life of CARA (2001-2015). This includes $19 million for our coasts, $16 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, $11 million for wildlife, $5 million for urban and suburban parks, $2 million for maintaining our public lands, and more than $5 million to make sure local governments with federal land are helped with any revenue loss through the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing programs. Michigan received 208 acquisition applications totaling $123 million for the years 1995-1999. Only half of those projects could be funded. For development projects, the record is even worse, with only $41 million dollars available for $306 million worth of requests. The Mayor of my largest city, Mayor Michael Guido of Dearborn, made a strong and succinct case in a recent letter to me: ``With your leadership, America can begin the 21st Century--as it began the last--in the spirit of President Theodore Roosevelt, with a permanent investment in our nation's parks and natural heritage.'' These same sentiments have been expressed by thousands of other mayors, almost all our Governors, our counties, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We should pass this bipartisan bill with a resounding vote, send it immediately to the Senate, and let's finish the 20th Century with as strong an action for conservation as that taken by Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the news release and letter from the Western Governors Association: National Governors' Association, May 9, 2000. Governors Urge Strong Congressional Support for Conservation Legislation Washington, D.C.--The nation's Governors today called on the U.S. House of Representatives to overwhelming support landmark conservation legislation, H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) of 1999. This bill would invest approximately $3 billion annually in state, federal, and local conservation programs such as coastal impact assistance and conservation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation and restoration, and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. ``This legislation is one of the Governors' top priorities,'' said NGA Chairman Utah Governor Michael O. Leavitt. ``Its passage will provide us with a stable, long- term source of funding for vital conservation efforts. More important, it will strengthen Governors' efforts to protect our natural treasurers, for our children and for future generators. We urge the House to strongly support CARA and send it to the Senate for quick action.'' On May 8, the nation's Governors sent a letter to all House Members urging them to vote for this bipartisan bill, saying: ``The Governors are united in our belief that when nonrenewable resources belonging to all Americans are liquidated, some of the proceeds should be reinvested in assets of lasting value.'' More than $4 billion in royalties from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf (OCS) are paid into the federal treasury every year. CARA would use a portion of those funds for their intended purpose: to invest in state conservation activities. Congress has not appropriated funds from OCS revenues to the states for many years. In particular, CARA includes $450 million per year for the statewide Land and Water Conservation Fund. H.R. 701 would provide funding for the following programs, on an annual basis: Coastal Impact Assistance--$1 billion; Land and Water Conservation Fund--$900 million; State Wildlife--$350 million; Urban Parks--$125 million; Historic Preservation--$100 million; Federal and Indian Lands Restoration--$200 million; Conservation Easements and Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery--$150 million.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I praise one of the too often under appreciated professions in our society: teachers. In doing so, I would like to offer my sincere thanks for their often thankless, but noble efforts. To quote Cicero, ``what nobler a profession, or more valuable to the state, than that of a man who instructs the rising generation.'' Teachers, next to parents, are the most influential people in the lives of our children. Like parents, they prepare students for the future. Teachers serve as role models, mentors, and friends. They strive to work with parents and guardians so that the full potential of each child may be realized. Mr. Speaker, teaching has never been an easy job, and it hasn't gotten easier in recent years. Currently, the people to whom we entrust our children must teach in classes so large many of us would find it impossible to maintain order, let alone create an atmosphere that is conducive to learning. Many teachers must work in dilapidated buildings, where heating, plumbing and cooling systems are insufficient. At a time when many of us would find it impossible to function without a computer, teachers are confronted with the task of preparing kids to work in an increasingly technological society without the use of this most basic piece of equipment. Not only do teachers deserve our thanks, they also deserve access to the best tools possible. Our nation's future is, after all, in their hands. We, in Congress, would be wise to enact a proposal similar to Vice President Gore's teacher assistance plan. We need to invest the necessary money to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes, modernize old schools and build new ones, and provide opportunities for teachers to get additional training so they can better prepare kids for the future. We must also draw educated and idealistic young men and women into teaching by providing student loan assistance to future teachers. Many of my colleagues and our Nation's Governors, acting either in haste, desperation, or stupidity, have continually tried to undermine real education reform by grasping at ``revolutionary schemes'' such as vouchers, which have proved to be as destructive to public schools as well as ineffective in raising student performance. They have attempted to privatize public schools, where 90 percent of America's children are educated. In an attempt to highlight the problems faced by public schools, they have used teachers and schools alike as punching bags to further their own risky, underhanded schemes that only divert education money away from where it's most needed. I stand before you today to say we should not tolerate this rascality any longer. Our teachers, our kids, and our Nation's future deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we can all work together, write quality legislation, help our schools, and thank our teachers for their efforts by showing them we know how important educating our children-- and their role in this mission--is to America's future.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act of 2000. This bill is an important first step toward improving the health and well-being of our nation's next generation. H.R. 4365 enhances the national research infrastructure and reinforces surveillance and prevention initiatives for such conditions as fragile X, autism, asthma, juvenile arthritis, childhood malignancies, traumatic brain injury, hepatitis C, and immediate adverse reactions to vaccines. I am particularly pleased to see two provisions that reflect the tireless efforts of my colleague Diana DeGette: one to advance the quest for a treatment and cure for juvenile-onset diabetes, and the second to improve pediatric organ transplant services. H.R. 4365 also strengthens existing activities to promote the use of folic acid in the prevention of certain birth defects, a measure that will reduce human suffering and save healthcare dollars. Other highlights of the bill include the expansion of oral health and epilepsy treatment services to undeserved children, and the reauthorization of the Healthy Start initiative, a demonstration program established to reduce infant mortality and improve pregnancy outcomes. Investments in America's researchers are also evidenced in H.R. 4365 through the extension of authorized appropriations to children's hospitals for the cost of graduate medical education. The bill enhances biomedical pediatric research by establishing a Pediatric Research Initiative within NIH, and centralizes the coordination of NIH research activities in the area of pediatric autoimmune disorders. Finally, to attract the most promising young research minds in the country to work on often overlooked childhood disorders, the bill contains loan repayment programs for biomedical researchers and physician-scientists. Regrettably, however, this children's health bill is not the best we could do for America's children. A number of my colleagues had amendments that would have strengthened H.R. 4365, but the irregular procedures used by the majority for the bill blocked their consideration. These include, but are not limited to: (1) supplementing S-CHIP and Medicaid to provide seamless access to state-of-the-art prenatal services to all pregnant women; (2) assuring equal access to pediatric specialists, medically necessary drugs and clinical trials for children with rare and/or serious health problems; (3) attending to state-by-state disparities in new born screening for genetic diseases by authorizing HHS to carry out the recommendations of the Task Force on Newborn Screening, an issue of deep concern to my colleague Mr. Pallone; and (4) an excellent proposal by my good friend Mr. Towns for establishing guidelines for the administration of psychotropic medications to children under five. An even more glaring omission from this bill is the lack of a provision to restore FDA's jurisdiction over the regulation of youth tobacco use. This issue was thoughtfully raised in legislation introduced by my colleague, Dr. Greg Ganske, which enjoys a broad base of bipartisan support. The process by which the legislation comes before us today is characterized by the majority's determination to block any discussion of this important issue. I have additional concerns about the difficulties that will arise for this particular Children's Health bill, H.R. 4365, as companion legislation is crafted by the Senate. Title XII, the Infant Adoption Awareness Act of 2000, has drafting problems, and leaves the bill vulnerable to a host of family planning and adoption issues that are beyond the agreed upon scope of this Children's Health bill. I will be one of the first to suggest that adoption is an important national issue. As of March 31, 1999, America had 117,000 children in the public foster care system who are awaiting adoptive parents and a permanent place to call ``home.'' This represents an increase of over 7,000 children since 1998, perhaps in part because Public Law 105-89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act has made more foster children, who are unable to return home safely, available for adoption. Something is wrong, however, when adoptive parents tell us that it is easier to pursue an international adoption than to adopt a special needs child from America. If we wanted to address adoption issues, we should have considered legislation sponsored by Senator Levin that the Senate has passed three times. It would facilitate the creation of a national voluntary reunion registry. In the era of genetic medicine, with its emphasis on family medical history information, this not only makes sense as public policy, but addresses the life-long psychological issues that often shroud the adoption process. Again, irregular procedures blocked mere discussion of this issue. Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill. I do so, however, with the fervent belief that we can, and should, do more for America's children than is reflected in H.R. 4365. The children of every district in this nation have waited too long for the many laudable provisions in the bill; but they also deserve more, and they deserve it soon. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of a bill that will make a big difference in the lives of low-income women with cancer, H.R. 4386, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. Two individuals have campaigned tirelessly for this bill and the rights of low-income women. First, I commend Representative Anna Eshoo. Were it not for the energy and attention that Ms. Eshoo brought to this issue, this bill would not be on the floor today. Secondly, I would like to remember Senator John Chafee, the original cosponsor of the companion bill in the Senate. The late Senator Chafee's advocacy for women, children, the poor, and the disabled will continue with the passage of this bill. We all know that early detection and treatment are the key to surviving cancer. This is the reason why the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) uses Federal funds to provide free diagnostic tests for breast and cervical cancer for low-income uninsured women, many of whom are minorities. With this bill, the Federal Government will complete its commitment to the low-income women who are diagnosed with cancer through the CDC's screening program. No longer will women diagnosed through the program have to scramble to find state funds, rely on charity care, or incur enormous debts in order to pay for radiation or chemotherapy. H.R. 4386 will allow women to enroll in the Medicaid program for the duration of their cancer treatment, so that they can focus their energies on fighting cancer instead of the health care system. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for H.R. 4386. Advocates of this bill have waited a long time for this day. Let's not make women with breast and cervical cancer wait any longer.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if we like careful regulation, if we like responsible behavior by the regulatory agencies, if we expect the regulatory agencies to do their job carefully, then we have no choice but to oppose the amendment offered by my good friends, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush). The simple fact of the matter is the FCC did several things. First of all, they changed the standard which was previously signal-to-noise ratio, which covered and described whether or not there was interference that was unacceptable. Second of all, they changed so that now we may no longer use the test of the third-adjacent channel. My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), said that the FCC was not opposed to this in that event by the broadcasters. In point of fact, the broadcasters oppose the grandfathering of those higher powered stations. Now, the issue here, and I want my colleagues to understand this very clearly, is not the question of interference as it impacts upon the broadcasters. Although that is important. It is the interference as it impacts upon the listener. In 1927, the Radio Act was set up to assure that we restored order to the broadcast channels by eliminating the wild interference and the wild placement of stations, which made the entire spectrum almost useless and impossible to listen to. What the traditional standard was, then, was the third adjacent channel. In addition to that, it was signal-to-noise ratio, which enables them to tell what in fact is going on from the standpoint of the listener. No test on these points was made by the FCC. The FCC simply wants to disregard the traditional standards and the traditional methods of measuring whether or not interference exists and will impact upon the listeners. Now, everybody is making the great pitch that this bill here is going to hurt minorities. In point of fact, it is going to impact most heavily upon benefitting, if we pass this legislation, minority listeners and minority broadcasters because they will receive the assurance that they will get proper protection of both broadcasting and the listeners' concern. Now, the point has been made, well, if they have got an expensive radio, they do not have to worry. Well, that is an argument that I find very distasteful, because the simple point of fact is that the minorities and the poor and the people who have most need of radio service are the people who can least afford an expensive radio. We are not talking about shower radios or things of that kind. We are talking about clock radios, inexpensive radios, radios that are used by minorities and by people of limited means. What the amendment does is it assures that the FCC will have to make a proper test and that the test will be accomplished by an independent testing entity. I think that is fair and proper. And then it lets the Congress make the decision. Now, I want to remind my colleagues of something that Sam Rayburn told the chairman of the FCC when he got out of hand. He said, Now, son, remember that you work for us and everything will be all right. The Congress is the body that has created the FCC to function under delegated authority. It is our responsibility to look after the FCC and see to it that their proceedings are fair, to see that their proceedings consider all the questions and are conducted in the proper fashion, and to see to it that the people who are dependent upon radio service get fair treatment. Remember, at stake here are rights of minorities, people of limited means, and public broadcasting. That is what really is in question, and the question of whether or not proper service is afforded the people. There will be literally hundreds of stations which will go on the air of low-power character. There will be at least 70 of them in major centers. And in areas below 50,000 markets, we will find that there will be an awful lot of broadcasters who will go on and utilize these low-power systems. That is the way it should be done. And then we can have a fresh look; we can come to a judgment as to whether or not the test says that we ought to permit the FCC to go forward. At that point a proper decision can be made.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to observe to the gentleman I think his complaint is a very legitimate one and thank him for raising it, and indicate that I know that the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) also and I will be trying to look after his concerns on this business of New Jersey having better and more adequate service, not only in the area of FM and AM, but also on broadcast television, which is very much in short supply from stations indigenous to that State.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the bill under consideration today, H.R. 3439, represents an extremely constructive and wise compromise reached in the Committee on Commerce over the future of low-power FM radio service. I particularly want to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), as well as my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for a reasonable, common sense solution to the problem which existed. The compromise, which was entirely bipartisan, allows some low-power stations to be licensed under existing interference standards immediately, some 70, and it then requires the FCC to establish a pilot program in a limited number of markets to determine precisely what the effects would be if these interference standards are relaxed in the future. This is to protect broadcasters. It is to protect licensees. And it is, above all else, to protect the listeners of the FM radio spectrum. By moving this theoretical question from the laboratory to the real world, all of us will be better able to judge whether or not permanent service, as envisioned by the FCC, should be permitted to move forward. It should be noted that the FCC has here moved without any consideration of fact and without any careful scientific work. They have no understanding of whether or not or how much interference will be caused by the order which they have brought forward. Great outrage existed throughout both the listener community and also through the broadcasting community. We are trying to see to it that a diversity of voices and views will be available to the American people, including a new low-power service. This, I believe, is beneficial. We do not debate the question of whether low-power service would be beneficial to our communities. I happen to believe so. I have not heard any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle to dispute the value of adding more diversity to the airwaves. Furthermore, I would note that neither the National Association of Broadcasters nor National Public Radio, both of whom are proponents of this legislation, have taken issue with the underlying goal of the FCC's recent order. But I would note that the legislation, as amended, does allow the project envisioned by the FCC to go forward under careful controls and under good understanding of the basic underlying scientific questions which have to be addressed. The issue under debate here is simply whether the FCC's order would cause an unacceptable level interference and thereby disenfranchise large numbers of existing radio stations and, more importantly, their listeners. Because it is the listeners that we protect. Put simply, we want to make sure that the FCC has done its homework and that it will do its homework and that no harmful interference will result from these new stations. The result, I think, is one that is in the public interest. In any event, the bill, as originally introduced by my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), simply would have repealed the FCC's order. That, I believe, was unwise. Many members of the Committee on Commerce, including myself, were not convinced that that was a proper solution. So we have come forward with a compromise which allows the matter to go forward and ensures that the FCC will act wisely and well upon the basis of science and fact. Again, I want to compliment my colleagues who have made this possible, especially the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the sick man of Europe had been dying a slow death. It was a particularly dark time in Europe when the sick man finally succumbed, and an empire collapsed. During World War I--a tumultuous, revolutionary time of great societal transformations and uncertain futures on the battlefields and at home--desperate Ottoman leaders fell back on the one weapon that could offer hope of personal survival. It is a weapon that is still used today, fed by fear, desperation, and hatred. It transforms the average citizen into a zealot, no longer willing to listen to reason. This weapon is, of course, nationalism. Wrongly directed, nationalism can easily result in ethnic strife and senseless genocide, committed in the name of false beliefs preached by immoral, irresponsible, reprehensible leaders. Today I rise not to speak of the present, but in memory of the victims of the past, who suffered needlessly in the flames of vicious, destructive nationalism. On April 24, 1915, the leaders of the Ottoman government tragically chose to systematically exterminate an entire race of people. We gather in solemn remembrance of the result of that decision, remembering the loss of one-and-a-half million Armenians. The story of the Armenian genocide is in itself appalling. It is against everything our government--and indeed all governments who strive for justice--stands for; it represents the most wicked side of humanity. What makes the Armenian story even more unfortunate is history has repeated itself in all corners of the world, and lessons that should have been learned long ago have been ignored. We must not forget the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Rwanda, or Bosnia. Today, on this grim anniversary, we must remember why our armed forces fought in the skies over Yugoslavia last year. We must not sit idly by and be spectators to the same kind of violence that killed so many Armenians; we must not watch as innocent people are brutalized not for what they have done, but simply for who they are. Ethnic cleansing is genocide and can not be ignored by a just and compassionate country. We owe it to the victims of past genocides to stamp out this form of inhumanity. It is an honor and privilege to represent a large and active Armenian population, many who have family members who were persecuted by their Ottoman Turkish rulers. Michigan's Armenian-American community has done much to further our state's commercial, political, and intellectual growth, just as it has done in communities across the country. And so I also rise today to honor to the triumph of the Armenian people, who have endured adversity and bettered our country. But again, Mr. Speaker, it is also my hope that in honoring the victims of the past, we learn one fundamental lesson from their experience: Never Again!

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to thank my good friend, I want to continue my comments, and I am going to try and watch my time very closely, I say to my good friend, the ranking member. These are important programs. They are great national treasures and they are a curious example of legislation which is protected by people who pay taxes, and the taxpayers and the sportsmen who pay the taxes are those who are the strongest supporters of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for having this GAO accounting and I want to commend him for the work which he has done to present this legislation to the House. I would like to observe that the situation has gotten into a bad state, and I would like to make an observation that this is regrettably something which does continuously require the attention and the oversight of the Congress. I would like to observe that the situation that has been brought to light is not a good one, and it is one which desperately needs correction for the protection of the fish and wildlife resources to which these monies will be put. I would like to observe, however, that a lot of time that programs of this kind become the subject of abuse simply because the appropriators and the Committee on the Budget are often times responsible for seeing to it that these monies become the go to fund for initiatives and expenses that were never authorized by Congress or programs that Committee on Appropriations sort of deals with a wink and a nod or the Committee on the Budget does to see to it that these monies are spent in a way that the legislative committee never intended. Mr. Chairman, certainly, that is a bad situation and hopefully, this legislation will help to bring that kind of situation under control. The basic program is, however, a sound one and a good one. I believe that the limitation on expenditures for administrative purposes and others is a good one. It may, perhaps, need to be increased, but at least at this time it is a useful device, not only to curb abuses within the agency, but also to curb abuses by the Congress and by the appropriators and by the Committee on the Budget enforcing the use of these kinds of monies for purposes that the legislative committees have never intended should be the expenditure. Having said that, I would observe that I believe that as the process goes forward that this Congress will work together to achieve a resolution of any differences and difficulties that exist across the aisle or between different Members. I am satisfied that as we work this legislation out, it will come to be something which will be the protection of a great national treasure. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I thank my good friend, the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for making this time available. I look forward to working together with them and with others to see that this is the legislation we want it to be.