John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Very good. Then I thank my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, earlier today during floor debate on H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999, I became aware of the intention of the Majority to insert in the Record as an extension of remarks ``legislative history'' that the Minority had not been afforded an opportunity to review. We were subsequently informed by Majority staff off the Floor that they had agreed to insert in the Record verbatim language that had been submitted by representatives of the Bond Market Association (BMA). I have serious problems with this sneaky attempt to affect the carefully-crafted bipartisan agreement on this bill. I have been supplied a copy of the BMA language and will review it carefully. After an initial reading, I have concluded that parts of it contain factual errors and I will be putting a statement in the Record over the next day or so to point out and correct these problems. In the meantime, I wish to express the well-established legal norm that the Courts, in interpreting this statute, should be governed by the plain meaning of the legislative language and the intent expressed in the Committee's report and not on late-crafted statements presented by lobby groups to only the majority and not cleared by the minority or discussed with the minority in proper fashion. Legislative history is the work of the Congress, in its official pronouncements or sometimes the remarks of its Members in debate. It is not the unscreened remarks of lobbyists submitted in self-serving and irregular fashion.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I am much comforted to know that. I am comforted because I have always been told in this place that the legislative history is a history of the legislation, and it involves discussion amongst all the people who are handling the legislation so that they all know what it is. I assume that I will have a chance to look at these and perhaps approve them before they become legislative history.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This rule has many reasons for being opposed, but I confine myself to one glaring defect. The rule would prohibit the House from considering a very important and ill-considered provision of the bill. The provision would require the Secretary of Energy to assign all national security functions, including safeguards, security, health, safety, and environment to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. This is not putting the fox in charge of the chicken house, this is putting an imbecile in charge of an important national function and major national concerns. It is this secretary, in his many incarnations and in many diverse identities, that has been a major part of the problems that we have confronted over the years. When I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, we investigated a continuous series of lapses on security. We brought them constantly to the attention of the administration, and nothing was done because it was all handled by the institutional holder of this particular office. The practical result of this is to assure the people that if we are concerned with the security of the national labs and other aspects of our activities within the Department of Energy, we are entrusting that responsibility to probably, institutionally, the most incapable individual in that particular place. I have submitted an amendment to strike this section. It was a bipartisan amendment which had the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on Science; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking member. The amendment also had the strong support of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who, being aware of the situation there, has recommended that the bill be vetoed if that provision is left in the bill. Despite the bipartisan nature of this amendment and the fact that the bill could face a veto over the provision, the rule will not even allow the House to decide the issue. That is an action of extraordinary arrogance and high-handedness on the part of the Republican leadership and on the part of the Committee on Rules. And I say that if we really want to continue jeopardizing the well-being and the security of these labs and of important national secrets, continuing to trust this responsibility to this part of the Department of Energy is a major mistake, one on which, having made our choice of fools, we can be absolutely assured that we will now reap the whirlwind. This is something which should not be done because the security of the United States says otherwise. This is a part of the Department of Energy, which has continuously presided over failures in security at the national laboratories and at other parts of the Department of Energy. So to continue this kind of folly is simply to assure that a major calamity follows. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. This rule is high-handed arrogance on the part of the Committee on Rules, the Republican leadership, and also on the part of the Committee on Armed Services, which is now taking care of one of their buddies and all of his special interest lobbyists that have been cutting a fat hog at the expense of the security of the United States. Let me give just a brief background on what this provision is all about. Currently, the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs is responsible for our national security programs, such as weapons production and management of the nuclear stockpile. However, over time, certain oversight functions have been given to independent offices within the Department, because Secretaries have concluded that the program offices were giving too little priority to needs such as safeguards, security, safety, and the environment. For example, during the Bush Administration, then-Secretary James Watkins established an independent Office of Safeguards and Security, after security lapses were documented at Rocky Flats and other facilities. Similarly, after asking independent ``tiger teams'' to assess the safety of our weapons facilities, Secretary Watkins was so concerned that he was forced to close many of them for repairs. This ultimately led to a Defense Facilities Safety Board, and an independent office of Health, Safety, and the Environment. This office also assumed responsibility for the clean up of weapons sites, such as Hanford, where decades of neglect had left thousands of gallons of nuclear waste seeping into the environment. Now we are facing yet further evidence of an erosion of safeguards and security at our DOE labs. Once again we are finding that those in charge of those facilities are still failing to give these matters proper attention. This can be expected when program managers have competing priorities. Secretary Richardson has proposed creating a senior officer reporting directly to the Secretary with the single responsibility of ensuring security. Instead, the bill would do the exact opposite, and return us to the sixties and seventies, where there was no independent oversight of security, safeguards, health, safety, and the environment. I do not want to suggest that reorganizations alone can ever solve the problems of safeguards and security. However, requiring the Secretary to assign responsibility for these functions to the same program managers with competing priorities is certainly the wrong answer. That was the organization of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Those were the years when these facilities went into unsafe disrepair, when neighboring communities were polluted in the air and in the water, and when secrets were stolen. Obviously, more needs to be done to beef up our safeguards and security, but returning responsibility to those who created the problem is not the answer. My attached letter to Warren Rudman underscores my view that independent assessments of security are required, and I ask unanimous consent to insert it at this point. Responsible reforms are needed at the Energy Department, but this bill contains one poorly conceived change. Because this rule does not allow us even to vote on this change, the rule should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I also provide for the Record documentation which relates to my comments about this very serious matter. Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, March 24, 1999. Hon. Warren Rudman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Washington,

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the death of one of the world's most enduring musicians. Frederic Chopin. Chopin was born in Zelazowa Wola, a village six miles from Warsaw, Poland on March 1, 1810. He suffered from tuberculosis and died in Paris at the age of 39 on October 17, 1849. This year his life and work will be celebrated around the world, and it brings me and my Polish heritage great pride to recognize this event. Chopin's abilities were recognized at an early age. At 9, he played a concerto at a public concert. He published his first composition at 15. And at the age of 21, Chopin moved to Paris where he was well-received. He taught piano lessons and often played in private homes, preferring this to public concerts. One of the best-known and best-loved composers of the romantic period, Chopin was devoted to the piano, and his more than 200 compositions demonstrate his grace and skill. And his admirers included fellow composer Franz List and Robert Schumann. Chopin reportedly fell deeply in love with the novelist George Sand (Aurore Dudevant), and he described her as his inspiration. His works include two sets of etudes, two sonatas, four ballads, many pieces he titled preludes, impromptus, or scherzos, and a great number of dances. Included among the latter are a number of waltzes, but also mazurkas and six polonaises, dances from his native Poland. Some of these dance pieces are among Chopin's best-known works, including the Polonaise in A-flat major and the Waltz in C-sharp minor. Among Chopin's most engaging works are the Preludes. Intended to serve as improvised beginnings to an intimate recital, these pieces range from gentle melancholy to the dramatic. Many of Chopin's most beautiful compositions come from the series of short, reflective pieces he called nocturnes. His nocturnes were usually gentle with a flowing bass and demonstrate Chopin's flair for elegant, song-like melodies. Indeed, Chopin composed some of the most beautiful piano music ever written, and I applaud those who will pay tribute to this remarkable composer and his Polish heritage in this important anniversary year.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1183, the Fastener Quality Act Amendments Act of 1999. The Fastener Quality Act, which would be amended by the bill before us today, was enacted in 1990 and originated in the Committee on Commerce. It resulted from an 18-month investigation conducted by the Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. This investigation uncovered deaths attributable to industrial and aircraft accidents in which fastener failures occurred; the use of substandard fasteners with false certificates in Army Corps of Engineer projects; defective fasteners in Army vehicles and in critical areas of Navy ships; and the falsification of test results for fasteners used in spacecraft and aircraft. For the last nine years, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the Department of Commerce has attempted, without success, to issue regulations implementing the Fastener Quality Act. Last year, legislation was enacted which imposed yet another delay in the issuance of fastener regulations. Under the law passed last year, Congress has until June 23rd of this year to enact amendments to the Fastener Quality Act, or NIST is to go ahead and issue its regulations implementing the current law. Why does the Fastener Quality Act need to be amended? The simple fact is that manufacturing in the United States has undergone the same technological revolution over the last 10 years that has occurred in virtually every other sector of American life. Manufacturing operations are now largely computer-controlled. Many of these systems can measure the conformity of each fastener being manufactured, and thereby reduce the need for end-of-the-line testing of a sample from each lot of fasteners being produced. Similarly, it was never the intent of the law that fasteners manufactured to a proprietary standard be covered by the Act, since total responsibility for fasteners produced to a proprietary standard rests with the one setting that standard. Nevertheless, NIST's proposed regulations cover proprietary fasteners, subjecting manufacturers and consumers to unnecessary expense and costs. This bill exempts fasteners produced to proprietary standards from the requirements of the Fastener Quality Act. The bill before us today is the product of an agreement involving the Department of Commerce and the fastener industry, as well as representatives of major industries that use fasteners. Not only does this legislation account for manufacturing innovations during the past 10 years, it also recognizes that problems in the fastener industry persist. An article in the April 5, 1999, edition of a publication called Engineering News illustrates why the Fastener Quality Act is still very much needed. This article cites a Department of Commerce consultant who claims counterfeit fasteners were used in the 700-foot tall hoist that broke free from the scaffold of an office building under construction in Times Square last July, killing an elderly woman and injuring 12 others. While it is too soon to tell whether counterfeit fasteners caused or contributed to this terrible accident, David Sharp, a consultant to the Commerce Department's New York Office of Export Enforcement, was quoted as saying there is ``very clear evidence'' that mismarked fasteners were used in the scaffold and hoist. Mr. Sharp also claims that initial findings indicate the use of inferior steel in some of the fasteners involved in this accident. Clearly, the Fastener Quality Act remains important today, and the legislation we are considering continues the important elements of the original Act. Fastener manufacturers and distributors are prohibited from knowingly misrepresenting or falsifying fastener characteristics, properties, mechanical or performance marks, chemistry, strength, manufacturer's insignia, or the record of conformance concerning a lot of fasteners. The record of conformance, which a manufacturer or importer of foreign-made fastener is to make available upon request to end users or purchasers, must also contain a summary of any end-of-the- line testing required by a consensus standard to which the fastener is produced. Records of conformance are required to be held for five years. Fasteners manufactured using quality assurance systems approved by accredited third parties would be exempt from these requirements of the Act. An accrediting body is required to provide notice to NIST that it meets the requirements of the published guide with which it purports to comply. All the criminal and civil penalties of current law are continued without charge. Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of the American public depends on fasteners that are able to do the job they are represented to perform. The Fastener Quality Act is a very important tool in achieving this objective, and the amendments before us today should reduce the regulatory burden on industry while maintaining essential protections. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Workers Memorial Day, I rise to pay tribute to the brave individuals who have tragically lost their lives or who have been injured while performing duties in service to their employers. My district is home to numerous plants and factories which provide gainful employment opportunities for many of my constituents. We all recognize that industrial and physically intensive jobs are necessary occupations which drive our manufacturing economy but often times involve very dangerous tasks. I praise the men and women who perform these jobs and take the risks to provide for a good life for themselves and their loved ones and who produce the products that make all of our lives easier or more comfortable. Unfortunately, we seldom recognize the dangers associated with an industrialized workplace until there is an accident or incident and we in Congress need to make sure that our Nation's workplace safety laws provide for the maximum level of safety for the men and women who perform dangerous jobs day in and day out. It is a terrible occurrence any time a worker loses his or her life or suffers an injury while on the job, but February 1, 1999 was an especially tragic day in my district. This was the day of the explosion at Ford Motor Company's Rouge Power Plant which took the lives of six workers and caused serious injuries to several more. The men who lost their lives in the explosion were Donald Harper, Cody Boatwright, Ron Moritz, Ken Anderson, John Arseneau, and Warren Blow. All were brave, loving and caring family men, proud members of the United Auto Workers and loyal Ford Motor Company employees. It is fitting on this Workers Memorial Day that we pay special tribute to our fallen brothers of the Rouge explosion and let their families and friends know that they will always be remembered. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect on this Workers Memorial Day that I remember and honor all our brothers and sisters who have sacrificed their lives or who have suffered an injury while on the job. I ask that my colleagues also join me in honoring the men and women to whom Workers Memorial day is dedicated.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, a further question of my good friend. Mr. Speaker, then is it my understanding and is it correct that a broadcast station could, for example, negotiate a cash payment from one video distributor for retransmission consent and reach an agreement with other distributors operating in the same market that contains different prices or other terms?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have a further question of my good friend. Is this provision also intended to prohibit a broadcast station from negotiating different terms and conditions, including price terms, with different distributors?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. This is legislation which will stimulate competition, which will make available better service at better cost to our people. I commend my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the full committee; the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), chairman of the subcommittee; our distinguished ranking member; and their capable staffs for working together in a fashion which they did to help us achieve enactment of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I note my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is standing. There is an issue which requires further clarification, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. TAUZIN, I understand that Title I contains telecommunications provisions in the bill. It provides that a broadcast station cannot engage in discriminatory practices which prevent multichannel video programming distributors from obtaining the station's consent to retransmit its signal. I understand that this provision is intended to prevent exclusive contracts between a broadcast station and any particular distributor. Is that correct?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment of the legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, one further question. So if a station negotiates in good faith with a distributor, the failure to reach an agreement with that distributor would not constitute a discriminatory act that is intended to be barred by this section?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in a dark time in Europe, a nation slowly collapsed. At this tumultuous time of great societal transformations, uncertain futures, and with governmental change looming on the horizon, leaders fell back on the one proven weapon that assured their personal survival. It is a weapon that feeds upon 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. It's result is ethnic strife and senseless genocide, committed in the name of false believes 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 results 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 fight in the skies over Yugoslavia. 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 Kosovars are brutalized not for what they have done, but simply for who they are. Ethnic cleansing is genocide and cannot 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 the triumph of the Armenian people, who have endured adversity and bettered our country. But again, Mr. Speaker, it is also my hoe that in honoring the victims of the past, we learn one fundamental lesson from their experience: Never Again!

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, President Lincoln once said, ``Let us have faith that rights makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.'' Today, the leaders of Northern Ireland face a delicate, worrisome situation. It is up to the leaders to decide if the path to the future will be one of peace or one of war. After centuries of animus, and thirty years of vicious factional bloodshed, the opportunity for a lasting peace is real and within grasp. Just as real, unfortunately, is the grave possibility of renewed bloodshed, further factionalism, and renewed war. Over a year ago, the leaders of factions in Northern Ireland made a monumental decision; they decided to pursue peace. It was a brave decision, one supported by all the people of Ireland but bitterly opposed by those unable to set aside their entrenched hatreds and swallow their bitterness. One year after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the people of Northern Ireland again face tumultuous waters that could easily cast their boat into the sea of despair. They must have faith that the course they are on is the right one, and must believe, as Lincoln said, that right will make might. They must do their duty as best they can, and build the peace that they seek and deserve. Last year, Nationalists and Loyalists, Protestants and Catholics, were successful in reaching the Good Friday Agreement only by engaging in democratic dialogue, serious yet principled compromise, and a mutual understanding that continued violence benefits no one. I commend their efforts, and hope that in the future they will be able to focus on other issues of mutual concern: bettering the economy, educating their children, and creating a democratic society where every man and woman is equal. There have been setbacks. The murder of advocates of peace and justice, like Rosemary Nelson, should not be forgotten. But it is not their untimely deaths that should be remembered, but their lives, which they gave in hopes that others would enjoy the fruits of peace. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the many Irish-American residents of Michigan, I rise today in recognition of the many brave souls who have chosen peace over violence, and compromise over confrontation. I ask that all parties work together as partners to implement the Good Friday Agreement, and end the senseless violence that has plagued Ireland for far too long.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, there is a line forming down here in the well. Its purpose is to provide a discharge petition which will put on the Floor a fair proposal which will make it possible for this House to vote and to work its will on a piece of legislation to reform one of the great scandals in this country. I am talking about excessive expenditures in campaigns. It will for the first time in years make a meaningful reform in terms of how money is spent and how much money is spent. It is something which will attack a problem that has been corroding the confidence of the American people in their government. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides to join together in signing this discharge petition, putting on the Floor of the House a piece of legislation which will enable the people to return their confidence to their government, because we will be eliminating one of the great abuses, excessive expenditures of money on public elections, something which is corrupting the public business of this Nation. I commend the framers of the discharge petition, I join in signing it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate a medical society which has provided quality service to Detroit, Wayne County, and the State of Michigan for the last 150 years. On April 14, 1849 with just 50 physicians, the Wayne County Medical Society was founded. Today, with more than 4,200 physicians in their membership, they continue to provide Metropolitan Detroit with the highest caliber of service and outstanding commitment to those in need. As they celebrate their sesquicentennial anniversary, the Wayne County Medical Society has labored to promote and encourage the unity and loyalty of the physicians of the community into a strong and cohesive medical society. They have brought into one organization the physicians of this county and with other county societies to form the Michigan State Medical Society and the American Medical Association. This beloved medical society provides continuing medical education for physicians, and maintains a program of educational service to the public on health and scientific matters. But, most of all they insure that a patient's freedom to choose a physician be maintained, and that patients receive the highest quality of medical care. Over the years the Wayne County Medical Society has had a positive impact on the public health of both Detroit and Wayne County. One of its most memorable accomplishments came under the direction of its former president, Dr. Francis P. Rhoades, who led a polio immunization drive which immunized thousands of Detroiters and virtually eliminated the threat of this crippling disease. Today, the Wayne County Medical Society runs a free medical and dental clinic at the Webber School in Detroit. Every child is afforded free services including physical examinations, health education, dental fluoride, sealants and prophylaxis. In addition they organized an annual Christmas Party for children in foster care. Last year, they sponsored a teen pregnancy conference with more than 500 Detroit Public School children in attendance. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pride that I pay tribute to this exceptional medical society whose tradition of assisting those most in need is truly a part of Michigan's great history. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in recognizing the Wayne County Medical Society of Michigan on their 150th anniversary.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, like a lot of my colleagues, I went up to Hershey, Pennsylvania, had a lot of talk and a lot of chalk. We went up to talk about how we are going to restore civility in this body. We talked about unfair allocation of staff and money. We talked about unfair committee ratios, the most unfair in 50 years. We did not talk about the unfortunate thing that happened this morning, and that is the unavailability of rooms for Democratic members to meet in this body. Now we can talk about the prerogatives of the Chair and the Republicans to run this place. I do not have any quarrel and I do not really expect to win, but I do expect to have fair treatment and a fair opportunity to talk. The question is, are the Republicans going to mean what they said about restoring civility? Yesterday we came back and voted on staff and money, an unfair allocation of both. But to just say that they cannot make rooms available for the Democrats to meet, it looks like the preponderance of the growing evidence is the Republicans do not intend to be fair, and that the spirit of Hershey has gone.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to introduce H. Con. Res. 60 telling the United States Postal Service that the Congress believes it should issue a series of commemorative postage stamps honoring veterans service organizations across the Nation. As we are aware, this year, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States will observe the 100th Anniversary of its founding. This important occasion represents the perfect opportunity to recognize the service of America's veterans, but the Postal Service has turned a deaf ear to numerous requests from veterans organizations, Members of Congress, and the American public to issue even a single stamp this year for this noble purpose. There are numerous organizations that deserve commendation, including the American Legion, AMVETS, Blinded Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Polish League of American Veterans of which I am proud to be one. And, these organizations would be specifically honored with the V.F.W. The Postal Service should be doing all it can to make this happen. Veterans have fought for our liberties, they should not have to fight for appropriate recognition. From the time of the Founding Fathers, American service personnel have sacrificed dearly to defend our country and its ideals. But their service is not confined to the battleground. Over time, veterans organizations have ably represented the interests of veterans in the Congress and State Legislatures across the Nation. They have established networks of trained volunteer service officers who have helped millions of veterans and their families secure the education, disability compensation, pension, and health care benefits they are entitled to receive as a result of their military service. Moreover, veterans service organizations have been deeply involved in countless local community service projects and have been constant reminders of the American values of duty, honor, and national service. With more than 25 million veterans serving as living reminders of the greatness of our Nation, it is only fitting and proper that their dedicated and professional service in times of war and peace be celebrated in the unique and lasting manner by which the Postal Service has honored past heroes. The Postal Service has seen fit in recent years to memorialize flowers, dinosaurs, dolls, movie monsters, household pets, and even cartoons, but it has been intransigent regarding our veterans. This ought not be so. I look forward to working with my colleagues--and the list of cosponsors indicates this is a serious matter on both sides of the aisle--to establish this momentous issuance.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we would not be here debating this bill if we would just enforce our trade laws according to the law. The European Union does, Japan does, why cannot the United States? Foreign mills are dumping steel on the American market for $200 to $400 a ton less than it costs to produce. Dumping. That is what it is. It is illegal. And if the administration will not stop it, then the Congress must. America's steel producers and steelworkers played by the rules. They made hard sacrifices in the 1980s to make this the most competitive, efficient and unsubsidized steel industry in the world. It is only because of illegal and unfair trading practices that our industry is being undercut here at home. The need for action is clear, compelling and convincing. The bill before us, H.R. 975, is common sense and bipartisan. It will reduce steel imports to 25 percent of the U.S. market. That is the level that played in 1997, before the dumping began. It authorizes the U.S. Customs Service to refuse entry to any steel product that exceeds allowable levels. It also includes Mr. Regula's language to establish a steel monitoring system, so that we can avert this situation in the future. This is good legislation and an appropriate response to this crisis. Finally, I would note that because of the import flux produced by dumping and other illegal trade practices, 11,000 American steel workers have lost their jobs. I would also note that several steel companies have filed for bankruptcy, and more are teetering on the brink. We must not stand by the wayside and watch the American steel industry exported out of business. This country was built with American steel and this country needs American steel. We need a global solution to this crisis. H.R. 975 provides that global remedy. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. For 50 years and more my dad and I have supported two things: The rights and the freedoms of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle East. I do not believe the action that we are taking today is furthering either of those goals. What we are doing is rejecting an evenhanded, honest broker approach to peace in the Middle East and substituting for that a participation in and invective directed at only one side. There is fault aplenty in the Middle East, but I do not believe that a honest broker should spend his or her time engaged in the finding or the charging of that fault. Clearly here we are breaching that rule. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. It is not in our interests, it is not in the interests of the Palestinians, and it is not in the interests of the Israelis. It is clearly not in the interests of peace. We best serve our own interests by working for peace and by seeing to it that all parties are aware of the fact that that is our sole and only goal in this matter. We are breaching that rule. I would urge my colleagues to keep in mind the fact that there is plenty that this country can do which will have much more beneficial effect on the cause of peace. We can work to see that both sides honor the Wye Accord and the Oslo commitments. That is not being done, nor is it being furthered here, and I would admit that there is fault again on both sides. But that fault is not to be judged by us, if we are to be honest brokers in the cause of peace. Rather, it should be the effort of this country to see to it that we bring the parties together to negotiate in an honest and an open and as friendly a fashion as we can arrange. Clearly that is not being accomplished here. I am not here to take sides with the Israelis, nor am I here to take sides with the Palestinians. I am here to say that what we are doing here is wrong, it is not in the interests of this country, nor is it in the interests of the cause of peace. I would observe that it is very easy to start a war in an area like the Middle East where tensions and passions are high. It is very, very hard to stop. This country has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in peace in the Middle East. Do we want to reject it by the adoption of a resolution which does nothing of good and which very probably is going to contribute much mischief and much evil to an already overheated area where tensions are high and where the peace process is not prospering. I would urge my colleagues to reject this resolution, to support measures which will put us in the position of being, as the United States, honestly concerned about peace in the area, in the position where we are leading both parties towards peace and towards an honest negotiation. This peace is not going to be resolved by invective. It will be resolved by all working together and by the leadership of the United States in the cause of peace.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an issue of great importance to our Nation: education. Education has long been the key to a society's success or failure. America must always be proud of its strong tradition of public education, and we in Congress must act to ensure that our public schools have the necessary tools to provide a world-class education to all our children, regardless of race, gender, religion, or economic status. Mr. Chairman, over the last year I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk of the numerous problems faced by our schools. I share their concern over the soaring student enrollment and the shortage of qualifed teachers. I also am deeply troubled about the acute school construction needs, with far too many schools lacking enough classrooms, let alone adequate roofing, heating, and plumbing. Our students also must have greater access to higher education and be taught the latest technology if they are going to compete in the global economy. With our public schools--where 90% of our Nation's children are enrolled--facing these stiff but not insurmountable challenges, politicians have rushed to reform education. While reform certainly is needed, we must be careful not to hastily pass legislation that offers ``reform'', but does not provide the necessary accountability or guarantee positive results. Some bold education reform measures offering vague objectives, spotty accountability, and unclear goals may prove successful. But what we gamble with in implementing them is our Nation's future. Today, Mr. Chairman, we debate Ed-Flex. In an ideal world, the plan proposed by the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Delaware would allow states and local schools to tailor valuable Federal programs to meet their particular needs. The flexibility afforded by this bill will allow education-friendly governors to work with educators to meet the challenges to today and tomorrow, and in doing so improve our schools. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Many governors, by their actions and rhetoric, are not friends of our public schools. They have used teachers and schools alike as punching bags to further their own political agenda. Worse than this, however, they have implemented education policies that abandon our public schools by subsidizing private schools with public tax dollars. I have very serious reservations about giving these governors more flexibility to further their agenda, and with less accountability. Given this climate are we guaranteed that flexibility will usher in positive results? In Michigan, a state with Ed-Flex currently in place, positive results have not been proven. None the less, I will reluctantly support the Ed-Flex bill before us today. I will also support the many strong, thoughtful, and meaningful amendments that my Democratic colleagues will introduce to guarantee a significant level of accountability. Contrary to what my Republican colleagues say, Ed-Flex--even if successful--will not solve the many problems in education that I have enumerated. These problems demand answers far and beyond granting waivers to rules in existing federal education programs. I am hopeful that we can all work throughout the 106th Congress to solve the very serious problems in education, and protect our Nation's future.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 1848 was a year of great tumult across the continent of Europe. Men, women, and children rebelled against the shackles of repressive aristocracies to demand a greater voice and greater freedoms. From these heroic uprisings, the seeds of change were permanently planted in Europe. Today, I rise to join Hungarian- Americans and the people of Hungary in commemorating the anniversary of start of one of these noble uprisings, the 1848 Hungarian revolution. On March 3, 1848--as revolution gripped much of Europe--a brave Hungarian patriot, Louis Kossuth, stood up against the ruling Austrian Hapsburg empire. In his ``inaugural address of the revolution'', Kossuth enumerated 12 sweeping reforms that reflected some of the most progressive ideas of the age, such as a reduction of feudal rights and the emancipation of the peasant. This declaration struck an immediate chord with the Hungarian people. The reforms immediately spurred the Austrian people to demand similar rights, and on March 13, a full- fledged revolution broke out in Vienna. On March 15, while Kossuth was in Vienna presenting his 12 points to the Habsburg monarchy, students in Buda-Pest armed only with Kossuth's reforms seized control in what has come to be known as the bloodless revolution. The following day the Hungarian delegation, led by Kossuth, submitted Hungary's demands before Emperor-King Ferdinand. The Austrian monarch quickly agreed to the points, prompting the Hungarian Diet to put the revolutionary reforms into effect. Thus, Hungary's future was forever influenced as the result of a peaceful, lawful revolution. The Hungarian Diet immediately began to work nonstop to pass new laws. By April the Diet had passed 31 progressive measures, which essentially amounted to a new constitution. These ``April laws'' attempted to provide for the needs of a nation moving towards modernization. Unfortunately, Hungarians did not have long to experience the effects of the new laws, because factions in the Austrian government were intent on squashing any semblance of Hungarian independence. On September 10, Baron Lelacic, with encouragement from the Habsburgs, let 40,000 Croatian troops across the Hungarian frontier. Hungary, led by Kossuth, was in the process of building up its army, and initially lost several battles to the invaders. Finally, General Arthur-Gorgey, who was to become one of Hungary's greatest generals, was given control of the Hungarian army. By April 1849 Gorgey's military brilliance and the tremendous bravery of the elite Hungarian Honved troops had driven all of the invaders out of Hungary, and Hungary had officially declared its independence from Austria. The Habsburg's were humiliated and forced to call on Russian Czar Nicholas I for assistance in bringing the now independent Hungary back under Austrian control. As a result, Hungary's independence was short-lived because in June, 1849, a joint Austrian-Russian offensive overwhelmed the valiant Hungarian defenders. On August 13, Gorgeys' forces laid down their arms before the Russians at Vilagos. Kossuth was forced to flee his beloved homeland and would live the rest of his life traveling the world to gain support for Hungary's cause. In a speech made prior to his departure, Kossuth said, ``My principle were those of George Washington. I love you, Europe's most loyal nation.'' It is fitting that within this building--this house of democracy-- sits a statue of Louis Kossuth. This is only right and appropriate. Although, the Hungarian revolution of 1848 did not end in prolonged independence for Hungary, it did result in at least one very noble achievement. The revolution prevented the Austrian government from revoking the emancipation of the peasants and all other unfree persons in the Habsburg's empire. For this historic accomplishment and for striving towards the ideal of the American Revolution, Hungarian and Americans of Hungarian decent should always be proud. I join with the strong Hungarian-American population in the downriver communities to celebrate the Hungarian revolution of 1848, truly an important turning point in the history of the Hungarian nation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to a colleague who has built a fine legacy of accomplishment as an adept and effective legislator--and leader--of this institution in which we all are honored to serve. Bob Livingston's leaving leaves a void that is not easily filled, as his colleagues from Louisiana have attested tonight. I wish Bob and Bonnie all the best as they embark on their new life, and am certain that Bob will continue to contribute to the public interest in the future. Bob, you will definitely be missed here, and as you leave Congress, you should take pride in your record of accomplishment for the State of Louisiana and the Nation. Good luck to you.