Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I want to just say at the very outset that I agree with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) when he says that our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt a different hand in the budget debate, in the budget resolution, that we might indeed be looking at stronger investments in this area. Mr. Chairman, our concern today is something that is consistent with what something the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, that our ability to sustain the current period of economic growth hinges on continued investment in the skills of American workers. But the gentleman rightfully acknowledged in title I there are significant cuts; is there anything we might be able to do to improve upon those cuts?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that I appreciate the hard work that the distinguished chairman, ranking member, and other members of the subcommittee and subcommittee staff have done to get us here today. The Labor-H mark is woefully inadequate to address the profound needs of the country, because this bill's allocation is economically short- sighted. For some in America, the economy is booming and unemployment is at its lowest rate in the last 30 years; yet the economy is not booming for all Americans. In the Chicago metropolitan area, congressional districts on the North side of Chicago like the chairman's have more jobs than people. In my district, there are more people than jobs. Hence, the chairman and his political party who are Republicans want less government and less taxes. I am a Democrat who is progressive and, in the absence of a private sector in my congressional district, I need more government services; my constituents need them, to make a difference in the shortfalls in their lives. For example, in the last several years, the number of people in this country who are uninsured and underinsured has increased by several million in the Chicago metropolitan area that primarily finds itself on the South Side and the south suburbs that I represent. This bill could have provided an opportunity for us to leverage the benefits of this booming economy so that no American is left behind. I appreciate all of the competing interests that must be balanced in this bill. Unfortunately, the mark has been dealt by the chairman a bad hand and he has been given an allocation that cannot adequately improve the lives of all Americans. In title I of this bill, this mark cuts $322 million of the President's request for youth programs serving 72,000 fewer at-risk youth, compared to the fiscal year 2000 level when the House cut $75 million, serving 34,000 fewer youth. As a result, efforts to ensure that today's youth have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs and can compete successfully in the growing economy will be thwarted, hurting not only young people, but also employers and the economy. The funding of four programs that are of particular interest to me are grossly underfunded. The mark slashes the youth opportunities initiative grants by over 50 percent. The mark cuts summer jobs and year-round job training for 12,575 disadvantaged youth. Over half of these jobs go to 15- and 14-year-olds who generally are not employed by the private sector. This mark cuts funding for the President's proposed reintegration of services for 15,300 young offenders. With approximately 500,000 people leaving prison each year, the Nation needs to provide positive alternatives and opportunities for unemployment to these individuals. The mark rejects expansion of the safe schools, healthy schools initiative. These programs, Mr. Chairman, are in serious trouble. At the very least, this bill should work to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Rejects Expansion of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative The House zeros out the President's request to provide $40 million to enable DOL to join the existing DOJ, ED, HHS partnership in supporting community-wide programs to prevent youth violence and drug abuse, and to expand the effort to address out-of-school youth. Without these funds, no new communities can join this very successful effort. These programs are in serious trouble. At the very least this bill should work to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The cuts to these programs below the President's recommended budget and the FY 2000 levels will produce tragic results for this nation's most vulnerable youth. This bill could have provided an opportunity for us to leverage the benefits of this booming economy so that no American is left behind. I appreciate all of the competing interests that must be balanced in this bill. Unfortunately the Chairman has been dealt a bad hand and he has been given an allocation that cannot adequately improve the lives of all Americans. In Title I of this bill, this mark cuts $322 million out of the President's request for youth programs, serving 72,000 fewer at-risk youth. Compared to the FY 2000 level, the House cuts $75 million, serving 34,000 fewer youth. As a result, efforts to insure that today's youth have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs and can compete successfully in the growing economy will be thwarted, hurting not only young people, but also employers and the economy. The funding for four programs of particular interest to me are grossly underfunded. Slashes the Youth Opportunities Initiatives by over 50 percent Congress provided funds for the first 2 years of a 5 year commitment by the President to increase the long-term employment and educational attainment of youth living in 36 of the Nation's poorest urban neighborhoods and rural areas. The House mark cuts $200 million out of the President's $375 million request, eliminating the proposed expansion to 20 new communities and potentially reducing third year grants to the existing 36 communities. This will deny 40,000 of some of the most disadvantaged youth a bridge to the skills and opportunities of our strong economy and alternatives to welfare and crime--including 15,000 youth in the existing projects. The demand for these funds is high--over 160 communities sought these limited resources and developed the broad partnerships and comprehensive plans as part of last year's grant process. These deserving communities and their young people will not get a second chance. Cuts summer jobs and year-round training for 12,575 disadvantaged youth For Youth Activities (the program that combines Summer Jobs and Year- Round Youth), the House mark provides only $1.001 billion, a decrease of $21 million, or 2% below the President's request level. This action reduces the estimated number of low income youth for FY 2001 in this program by 12,575 below the request. These cuts will compound the difficulties communities are experiencing this summer due to the structural changes in the program required by the Workforce Investment Act. This important program provides the first work experience for many at-risk youth, offering an important first step that can lead to a life of self-sufficiency and independence. Over half of these jobs go to 14- 15 year olds who generally are not employed by the private sector. Cuts funding for the President's proposed reintegration services for 15,300 young offenders The House mark rejects the President's $61 million increase for a $75 million initiative to bring young offenders into the workplace through job training, placement, and support services, and by creating new partnerships between the criminal justice system and the WIA workforce development system. With the approximately 500,000 people leaving prison each year, the Nation needs to provide positive alternatives and opportunities for employment of these individuals, which will also strengthen the future of our communities. With the strong economy, this is an excellent time to address their re-entry into the job market. Raising their employment rates can decrease recidivism, reduce long- term costs to society, and increase the pool of available workers.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, our amendment is very, very specific. The activities covered for youth in this House bill is 599,400 youth will be covered under this bill. Our amendment moves that number to 739,000 youth. For youth opportunities, the House bill covers 40,700 Americans. Our bill moves that number to 84,600 Americans. For young offenders, it moves the House bill from 3,500 youth under the bill to 18,800 youth under the bill; adult activities from 342,800 to 380,000. I want it thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his strong support of this amendment. This is a pro-American amendment, not a Democratic amendment, particularly at a time, as the gentleman pointed out, that our economy is doing so well. Let us spread the wealth.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Maybe there is a little misunderstanding of my amendment because it keeps getting couched in Democratic and Republican terms, who controls the House, who does not control the House. I know the gentleman's strong advocacy for youth. My amendment specifically adds $200 million to restore the President's request for youth opportunity grants, and it adds an additional $61 million to restore the President's request for the reintegration of youth into the economic mainstream. Would the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) please comment on whether or not he supports that idea in his advocacy for the youth and whether or not he supports my amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) would be able to respond a little more specifically to the amendment and the request that we have in this amendment to add $93 million to the adult skills training program. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would be kind enough to respond to our very simple question to increase the spending in this bill for $93 million for just one of the programs that I outlined in the title 1 of the bill. Our goal, Mr. Chairman, is to increase, in light of what Chairman Alan Greenspan indicated that we need to invest more money in underskilled, underutilized workers. I understand the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania a few moments ago, but I was hoping that he would respond more specifically to the thrust of this amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am really excited that the gentleman from southern Ohio (Mr. Strickland) came to the floor today to make the case for support of this amendment. Under the House bill, 215,800 fewer of the 3.3 million workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own each year will be served under the President's request of $389 million for dislocated worker assistance, which my amendment, Mr. Chairman, restores to the Labor, HHS mark. Mr. Chairman, every time I come to this House floor and offer an amendment of the magnitude that we are talking about, someone inevitably says, minorities are doing better. I mean, here comes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to the House floor. He has got to be talking about minorities. The gentleman does not represent a district primarily of minorities, but he talked about counties where unemployment in his congressional district are as high as 17 percent. I was hoping that the gentleman would please expound upon what the implications of this increase would do for his congressional district.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for his support of my amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise along with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to engage the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the transportation appropriations report includes language that I offered during the full committee markup. This language urges the FAA to expeditiously conclude negotiations with state aviation officials regarding forecasts for a proposed third airport in the Chicago metropolitan area and initiate promptly an environmental impact statement on the proposal.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman too for his support and his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with the gentleman and our colleagues on the committee to ensure that the FAA fulfills its obligations to meet the national aviation needs of our country.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished ranking member on this committee who has done an outstanding job. And her leadership comes at a high price at this time during our Nation's history.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I was hoping that the chairman might be willing to make a further commitment to us in his instructions to the conferees to certainly consider the summer jobs program. As the calendar continues to tick, certainly this issue is becoming a pressing issue for those of us who live in inner cities across the country. So while it may be discussed with the conferees, if in fact it is not addressed in this particular bill, could the gentleman be kind enough to be a little bit more specific about what the appropriate measure is for those of us on the committee who will be willing to advance this?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have seen this movie before, starring Harrison Ford: Clear and Present Danger. Unfortunately, Harrison Ford did not win an Oscar for his role, but, quite frankly, some of my colleagues could have won an Oscar for their supporting cast in today's movie, which we have already dictated and determined what the future and outcome will be. Let us look at some of the underlying scripted parts of this movie, as I prepare to yield to the gentlewoman from California for her closing remarks. The cost of the helicopters alone would provide treatment for almost 200,000 substance users or drug prevention services for more than 4 million Americans. Arianna Huffington, in her article ``Drug War Comes at a High Price,'' was right. We are about to spend close to $2 billion on Colombia, while here at home we have 3.6 million addicts not receiving the treatment they need. This despite the fact that drug czar Barry McCaffery's budget is expected to rise to a proposed $19.2 billion this year. When Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, he directed more than 60 percent of the funds into treatment. Now we are down to 18 percent. And since 1980, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, the emphasis has turned to interdiction, crop eradication, border surveillance and punishment. The evidence is clear, and that has been the misguided use of resources. But putting $1.7 billion into Colombia in the middle of a civil war is more than misguided. Quite frankly, from my perspective, it is nuts.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge a no vote on this rule. This up and coming Saturday in my congressional district, several thousand people will be marching, not only against this conference report but against the use of the passenger facility charge in the city of Chicago and in the northeastern Illinois region. This conference report increases the passenger facility charge from $3 to $4.50. However, it fails to ensure that PFC funds earned will be used in the way Congress originally intended. The stated purpose of the PFC act was to, and I quote, ``enhance safety * * * or capacity of the national air transportation system; reduce noise * * * from airports; and furnish opportunities for enhanced competition among or between the carriers.'' Appropriate use of PFCs has been an ongoing problem since they were instituted in 1990. The city of Chicago currently collects the $3 ticket tax to the tune of about $100 million a year, although much of this revenue stream is not being used as Congress intended, to increase capacity. Instead, the city has used PFCs in a number of ways: To finance a $2.2 billion cosmetic facelift at O'Hare Airport. And even without the flight restrictions offered, the lifting of those flight restrictions offered in this legislation, that $2.2 billion has not increased capacity at O'Hare Airport by one new flight; To finance a $700 million terminal expansion at Midway Airport. The airport of the gentleman from Illinois, its longest runway is 6,446 feet, and therefore, no Series V or VI airplanes will ever land there. The $700 million at his airport for terminal expansion will not increase the size of the aircraft that land at his airport by 1 foot. There are future plans to use PFCs in my city to finance highways leading to O'Hare Airport. Why should passengers flying on airplanes be paying for highways with passenger facility charge dollars? Because the traffic jams getting to the airport because of the growth in the northeastern part of our city and State is all concentrated in one area, with none of it working its way south. Rather than using Federal taxes to enhance capacity, safety, or competition, Chicago is also spending $1.7 billion to enhance existing monopolies, without creating room for even one new flight, capacity being defined using at least four factors: runway length, space between runways and taxiways, airspace, spacing between aircraft, weight and restriction of the aircraft. Absolutely none of this money in the city of Chicago is being used for runway length or runway expansion. I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). So despite soaring ticket prices, service by airlines to and from O'Hare is being systematically reduced, particularly to smaller cities. Due to rising fares and reduced services, the major airlines at O'Hare Airport are posting record profits, led by whooping 63 percent earnings gained by United Airlines in the fourth quarter of last year. That is in part because then Congressman Rostenkowski pushed legislation through which created a $3 passenger facility charge or ticket tax, no matter what they choose to call it in this Congress it is a tax, to pay for a new airport, an airport that was never built. However, the Governors of our State, Jim Edgar and Jim Ryan, quickly proposed building a new airport in and around my congressional district, where the growth and economic impact would greatly benefit my constituents. Instead of using the resources for a much needed purpose, these resources are going to enhance existing monopolies at existing monopolistic airports. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the fifth-largest private institution of higher education in Illinois, Columbia College Chicago, as it starts the 1999-2000 school year. Columbia College Chicago is an undergraduate and graduate college in downtown Chicago whose principal commitment is to provide comprehensive education in the arts and communication within the context of enlightened liberal education. Founded in 1890, Columbia continues its dedication to communication arts as well as to media arts, applied and fine arts, theatrical and performing arts, and management and marketing arts. More than one-third of Columbia's 8,500 students are minorities--the largest enrollment of any arts and communications institution in the country. Dr. John Duff, President of Columbia College continues to develop the foundations of a Columbia education which includes small class sizes that ensure close interaction with a faculty of working professionals who bring the working world into the classroom. The College provides a sound liberal arts background for the developing artist or communicator and supports students' employment goals through a full range of career services. Outside the classroom, students participate in activities that include the College's student newspaper, radio station, electronic newsletter, two student magazines, cable television, three theaters, dance center, photography and art museums, and film and video festival. Columbia is an integral part of its community, sponsoring and working with over two dozen diverse organizations, ranging from the African Film Festival to the Chicago Jazz Ensemble. Dozens of other independent organizations are involved regularly with one or another program or department of Columbia. This nurturing of diversity is Columbia's hallmark. Today, Columbia remains secure in its mission and traditional commitments to opportunity, diversity and career-cognizant arts and media education in a liberal arts context. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Columbia College Chicago, a unique Chicago institution, which draws both its strength and identity from the city and its students.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I apologize for being out of dress code, Mr. Speaker. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Members on the other side of the aisle falsely claim that this conference report saves Social Security while increasing spending over the President's request for education and certain health care programs. When did Members from the other side of the aisle start to care about Social Security? Just 3 months ago Members from the other side of the aisle were peddling an almost $800 billion tax cut that did not help save Social Security, and today the Congressional Budget Office stated the Congress has already spent $17 billion of the Social Security surplus. This report, like many of the spending bills before it, does not extend the life of Social Security by even 1 day. It fails to include a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, and it hurts every American family in some way. The Labor-HHS and Education bill should help families in this country get through today and prepare for tomorrow. Unfortunately, this bill is loaded with reckless gimmicks and outrageous offsets. Here are just a few examples of some of them. This report contains $10 billion in advanced appropriations creating a $19 billion hole for next year requiring a further raid of the Social Security surplus. This report contains $11 billion in delayed obligations for the Departments of Health and Human Services. These delayed obligations will force the National Institutes for Health to not spend 60 percent of the NIH research grant budget until the last 2 days of Fiscal Year 2000. And the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, this delayed obligation represents 60 percent of the total amount that the CBC awards for grants and cooperative agreements. This delay will interrupt programs that address infectious diseases, immunizations including children's vaccines, HIV/AIDS surveillance, and prevention activities and chronic diseases. In the Health Resources and Services Administration this delayed obligation represents 25 percent of its budget, which will interrupt the provision of vital health services for 3 million underserved men, women, and children. One of the most egregious offsets in this bill is the .97 percent government-wide across-the-board reduction. This reduction is not about cutting waste, fraud and abuse, as the distinguished Budget chairman came a few moments ago and talked about, in Federal agencies, as Members on the other side of the aisle continue to claim. In fact, there is very little discretion for agency heads to make decisions about these cuts. In the Meals on Wheels program, for example, this reduction will result in 1.1 million fewer meals and 8,400 fewer seniors being served. In the Head Start Program, this reduction will deny Head Start services to approximately 7,000 needy children. In Youth Training programs, this reduction will deny job training, summer employment and education opportunities to almost 6,000 disadvantaged youth. As a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I hoped my colleagues and I would have been able to come up with a real bill that would have provided real differences for American families. I am disappointed in the product we have before us and the process that has gotten us to this point, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived conference report.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised new investment in high-speed digital networks capable of sending and receiving huge amounts of data and information. These networks, known as ``broadband,'' are far superior to dial-up technology that relies on modems and conventional telephone lines. Make no mistake, broadband networks are a critical part of the continued growth of the Internet. However, the promise of the Telecommunications Act has not been met. Thus far, the main beneficiaries of these state- of-the-art networks are almost exclusively downtown business centers. Broadband services simply aren't widely available to people and small businesses, like my constituents in the second district of Illinois. I have reviewed letters and other communications from the University of Illinois, Northwestern University, Western Illinois University, the State Board of Education, the Board of Higher Education, and the Illinois Department of Central Management Services as well as several community colleges and small businesses on this issue. I am convinced that we need to take definitive and immediate steps to deal with the digital divide. If we don't we will be a nation of ``haves'' and ``have nots.'' That's exactly what's occurring today and why I hope we will advance legislation to address this problem. As a matter of public policy, we should remove outdated regulations and encourage investment and competition by local telephone companies in the Internet's network backbone. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our constituents to keep the promise of a bright technological future for all Americans.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the ranking member the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the time and certainly thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his very evenhanded approach to drafting the House version of the foreign operations bill under very tight budget constraints. Unfortunately, the conference report further cuts programs that I feel are vital to serving those who are less fortunate around the world. I guess the questions that many of us are trying to ask today is, if not now, when? I was in the meeting when the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations met with Prime Minister Barak from Israel, where we gave him the impression that in this foreign operations bill that we would meet some of the Wye money agreement. There is no evidence in this bill that we are going do that. So, if not now, when will we do it? We made commitments to the Palestinian authority. If not now, when will we honor these commitments? We made commitments to the Jordanians. If not now, when will we honor these commitments? What are the costs associated with peace in the Middle East completely collapsing? Have we measured it in terms of cost to our national defense, to our national security in the Middle East what those costs ultimately will be? I cannot thank the chairman enough for the $1 million that he was kind enough to appropriate to fulfill one of our commitments to the African Development Bank. It is not enough, but it clearly is a start. I am also seriously concerned about the low level of funding for debt restructuring, only $33 million, $87 million below the administration's request. Many nations in sub-Saharan Africa are suffering from crushing levels of debt, both bilateral and multilateral, and these nations will never become self-sufficient until we help decrease some of these debt levels. So, Mr. Speaker, the question becomes: If not now, if not in a regular appropriations bill, at what point in time will we begin to measure these deficits in terms of national security, in terms of our obligations beyond our borders so that we can have a sustainable growth and sustainable development in the world, which will ultimately cost us if in fact the development is not sustainable and it is not growing? I have really enjoyed working on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and I certainly urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this inadequate conference report.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations for the bipartisan, collegial spirit evident during our hearings and the subcommittee markup. As a new member of the subcommittee, I feel privileged to have worked with such a fine group of members. We all know this is a very difficult budget year and I am grateful to the gentleman from Alabama for his evenhanded approach to drafting the Foreign Operations bill. Although I would have liked to see additional funding to be provided for Africa in the bill, at the very least funding for Africa was maintained at a freeze. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that for us to maintain our position as a global leader, we must continue to lead the world in assisting those countries that need the most help. I am concerned, however, about three particular areas of this bill, the Development Fund for Africa in the Development Assistance section of the bill; the Africa Development Bank; and the Africa Development Fund. I am most disappointed that the bill does not fulfill the administration's and my request to reinstate the Development Fund for Africa as a separate line item as it was several years ago. Many nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented progress toward democratic rule and open markets and with the Development Fund for Africa included as a separate account, funding would be assured to remain focused on the long-term problems and development priorities of our African partners. Although there have been numerous concerns in the past about management of the Africa Development Bank, I know that strides have been made. I feel it is unwise to completely zero out funding for the bank at this time when they are working diligently to address the management problems. I am encouraged that the Africa Development Fund received a level allocation from last year. However, the Africa Development Fund helps the poorest of the poor countries, and I had hoped that the committee would have provided a higher number. I cannot stress enough how much I have enjoyed working this year on this Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs and I look forward to future work with my colleagues as we address the problems and concerns of the developing world. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his outstanding job and the gentlewoman from California, and I want to encourage all of my colleagues in light of these amendments to follow the gentlewoman from California on these votes.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, but I have one concern that I hope can be resolved during Conference. My concern is bill language in ``Title I, General Expenses'' that will force the closure of the Chicago office of the Great Lakes/Ohio River division of the Army Corps of Engineers. Because of the importance of the Great Lakes to the United States, both for shipping and providing drinking water to millions of people, an agreement was reached in 1996 to maintain dual headquarters of the Great Lakes/Ohio River Army Corps division in both Chicago and Cincinnati. This dual headquarters system should be maintained, and I hope that the House conferees will recede to the Senate's silence on this matter. Otherwise, I am supportive of the bill because it provides funding for critical flood control projects in my district and throughout the Chicago area. These projects include: $4.5 million to continue work on the ``Deep Tunnel'' project, including the Calumet leg of the tunnel in Chicago's South Side and south suburbs, and the McCook and Thornton reservoirs. $200,000 for detailed planning of a detention pond and storm sewer improvements along Natalie Creek near the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in Oak Forest and Midlothian. $150,000 for small ecosystem restoration at a reservoir along Hickory Creek in Tinley Park. $100,000 each for preliminary studies of recurrent flooding problems along: Tributaries A and B of Thorn Creek in Chicago Heights; Flossmoor Tributary of Butterfield Creek in Flossmoor; and Village streets in Calumet Park. I commend Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky for putting together a bipartisan, even-handed bill under difficult budget circumstances. They have done an amazing job with this bill, while taking into consideration the countless deserving project requests they received from Members from all regions of the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to resolve the issue of closure of the Chicago office of the Great Lakes/Ohio River division, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.