Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber just a few months ago, the President of the United States stood right here; and he said in his State of the Union address that ``trade has divided us and divided Americans outside this Chamber for too long. Somehow we have to find common ground on which business and workers and environmentalists and farmers and government can stand together.'' President Clinton continued: ``We must ensure that ordinary citizens in all countries actually benefit from trade, and we applaud it, a trade that promotes,'' he said, ``the dignity of work and the rights of workers and protects the environment. We have got to put a human face on the global economy, and then we proposed the old face on the global economy.'' I would love for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) or any of the sponsors of the bill to show me specifically in H.R. 434 where that common ground is. Show me where multinationals from the United States that locate in sub-Saharan Africa and take advantage of these trade provisions, that they have to hire African workers. Show me how we have provisions in this bill to keep the Chinese from taking advantage of African workers by importing Chinese workers into sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1999] A `Grotesque' Gap Between the Global Economy's Winners and Losers (By R.C. Longworth) As the global economy grows, rich nations are getting richer than ever, and poor ones are stuck in shantytowns on the outskirts of the global village. ``Global inequalities in income and living standards have reached grotesque proportions,'' the UN Development Program said in its annual global overview, the Human Development Report. For instance: The richest countries, such as the United States, have 20 percent of the world's people but 86 percent of its income, 91 percent of its Internet users, 82 percent of its exports and 74 percent of its telephone lines. The 20 percent living in the poorest countries, such as Ethiopia and Laos, have about 1 percent of each. The three riches officers of Microsoft--Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer--have more assets, nearly $140 billion, than the combined gross national product of the 43 least-developed countries and their 600 million people. The United States, meanwhile, has more computers than the rest of the world combined. Lesser-developed countries are not likely to catch up any time soon: the same computer that costs a month's wages for the average American takes eight year's income from the average resident of Bangladesh. The 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998. But in nearly half the world's countries, per capita incomes are lower than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Some of these are oil-producing nations hit by the long slump in oil prices, but many are in sub-Saharan Africa, where per capita income has fallen to $518 from $661 in 1980. In 1960, the richest fifth of the world's people had 30 times as much income as the poorest fifth. By 1997, that proportion had more than doubled, to 7-1. The key to a solution to these problems, the UNDP said, is not to stamp out the global economy but to embrace it with the rules and institutions that will ensure it serves people and communities, not just markets and their manipulators. ``Competitive markets may be the best guarantee of efficiency but not necessarily of equity,'' it said. ``Markets are neither the first nor the last word in human development. ``Many activities and goods that are critical to human development are provided outside the market, but these are being squeezed by the pressures of global competition. ``When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably--concentrating power and wealth in a select group of people, nations and corporations, marginalizing the others. ``The challenge,'' the report said, ``is not to stop the expansion of global markets. The challenge is to find the rules and institutions for stronger governance . . . to preserve the advantage of global markets and competition but also to provide enough space for human, community and environmental resources to ensure that globalization works for people, not just for profits.'' The gap between people, like the one between nations, also is growing in the global economy, the UNDP report said. Inequality is growing both in industrialized nations-- especially in the United States, Britain and Sweden, it said--and in newly industrializing countries, such as China and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe. One result of globalization, it said, is that the road to wealth--the control of production, patents and technology--is increasingly dominated by a few technology--is increasingly dominated by a few countries and companies. Of all the countries in the world, only 10, including the United States, account for 84 percent of global research-and- development spending. Businesses and institutions in the same 10 control 95 percent of all patents issued by the U.S. government over the past 20 years, it said. Among corporations, the top 10 controlled 86 percent of the telecommunications market, 85 percent of pesticides, 70 percent of computers and 60 percent of veterinary medical products, it said. The major countries and the global corporations may have earned their dominance, but, the report said, this monopoly of power is cutting poorer nations off from a share of the economic pie and, often, from decent health care and education. ``The privatization and concentration of technology are going too far,'' the report said. ``Corporations define research agendas. . . . Money talks, not need. Cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.'' Many new technologies, ``from new drugs to better seeds,'' are priced too high for poor nations, it said. Global patent laws, intended to protect intellectual property, are blocking the ability of developing countries to develop their own products. Even within the Third World, inequality is sharp. Thailand has more cellular phones and Bulgaria more Internet users than all of Africa except South Africa, the report said. The report was not all gloom and doom. Even as gaps between nations grow and some countries slide backward, the quality of life for many of the world's poor is improving, it said. Between 1975 and 1997, life expectancy in Third World countries rose to 62 years from 53, adult literacy rates climbed to 76 percent from 48 percent, child mortality rates to 85 per 1,000 live births from 149, and some countries-- Costa Rica, Fiji, Jordan, Uruguay and others--``have overcome severe levels of human poverty.'' The UNDP report said uneven and unequal development around the world is not sustainable and risks sinking the global economy in a backlash of public resentment. Without global governance that incorporates a ``common core of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of responsibility and obligations,'' the major nations and corporations face trade wars and uncontrolled financial volatility, it said, with the Asian financial crisis of the past two years only the first of many upheavals. At the moment, new rules and regulations are being written in talks at the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other powerful global bodies. But these talks are ``too narrow,'' the report said, because they focus on financial stability while ``neglecting broader human concerns such as persistent global poverty, growing inequality between and within countries, exclusion of poor people and countries, and persisting human-rights abuses.'' They are also ``too geographically unbalanced,'' with an unhealthy domination by the U.S. and its allies.'' The UNDP report called instead for a ``global architecture'' that would include: A global central bank to act as a lender of last resort to strapped countries and to help regulate finance markets. A global investment trust to moderate flows of foreign capital in and out of Third World countries and to raise development funds by taxing global pollution or short-term investments. New rules for the World Trade Organization, including anti- monopoly powers to enable it to keep global corporations from dominating industries. New rules on global patents that would keep the patent system from blocking the access of Third World countries to development, knowledge or health care. New talks on a global investment treaty that, unlike talks that failed last year, would include development countries and respect local laws. More flexible monetary rules that would enable developing countries to impose capital controls to protect their economies. A global code of conduct for multinational corporation, to encourage them to follow the kind of labor and environmental laws that exist in their home countries. The report praised voluntary codes adopted in Asia by Disney World and Mattel, the toy company. The leading industrial nations already are considering new global rules on investment, banking and trade. The UNDP report, in effect, endorsed these efforts but urged that they be broadened to include the needs of poorer nations.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this bill is titled the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, but the single largest barrier to growth and opportunity on the continent of Africa is the overwhelming AIDS epidemic that the U.S. Surgeon General has compared to the plague of the 14th century. Wherever Members are on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, passing or not passing, and all of us have various positions with respect to this bill, including the process this bill has gone through for amendments, we had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that specifically prohibited the United States government from bringing action against sub-Saharan countries that are attempting to buy drugs cheaper or even produce generic drugs. That amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules, apparently overwhelmingly, but what was accepted was another AIDS amendment that gives a sense of the Congress that we want to do something about it; just a sense of the Congress, nothing binding, no appropriation, no money. Certainly there is going to be a problem for any U.S. investment in sub-Saharan Africa that does not provide for relief in terms of pharmaceuticals and drugs for sub-Saharan people. Again, regardless of Members' position on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, we need a commitment from the majority to advance the debt relief bills of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). It helps towards the AIDS crisis. We need a commitment on more appropriations to make more funding available to address the continent's most devastating disease. We need a commitment toward AIDS education on the continent. With more than 1,500 languages, it is difficult to explain to many different people in many different languages how devastating the disease is. In Durbin, South Africa, Mr. Chairman, we just received a newspaper article about a horrible rumor, a horrible rumor that if you have sex with a virgin, that is the cure to AIDS. We have to fight this kind of ignorance on the continent, and that will only come from more money, more money and more appropriations. I want to thank the gentlewoman for having the guts, really, to stand up today and claim opposition to this amendment. [From CNN Interactive, May 19, 1999] In South Africa, Doctors, Courts Fight Brutal AIDS ``Cure'' (By Charlayne Hunter-Gault) Durban, South Africa (CNN)--South Africa's northeastern province of Kwazulu-Natal is blessed with a lush landscape-- and cursed with the country's highest AIDS rate. The rolling hills and fertile valleys in the province of 8.5 million have spawned a myth of a terrible folk ``cure''-- a story that says having sex with a virgin will rid sufferers of the disease. The widespread belief has left parents, children, doctors and the courts struggling with a wave of rapes, frequently of young girls. Skhumbuza Mthembu, a 15-year-old peer counselor at a village primary school in Mpophomeni, says he has heard of the so-called cure from local men and boys. And he often hears firsthand about the results. Those who have been victims tell horror stories about being raped by a teacher, or a brother, an uncle or even a father. They tell of being assaulted in restrooms, in the forest or the bush, or in bed while they were sleeping. More and more stories like this are being told by younger and younger children across this province and elsewhere. But many, many more stories are not being told until it's too late. Dr. Gillian Key treats sexually abused children at the Addington Children's Hospital in Durban, the harbor port of Kwazulu-Natal. ``Unless you see the children within an hour or one or two days, you're unlikely to find anything,'' Key said. ``It's a pitiful thing.'' Some of the children receive good news--that they test negative for HIV. For another family, the news wasn't good. One such child key treated was raped when she was 2: She tested HIV-positive and now is developing full-blown AIDS. ``It's hard every day,'' said her mother, who asked that her family remain anonymous our of fear that her daughter would be stigmatized. ``It's hard not knowing that one day she might not grow up.'' In Durban, authorities have set up a special court to deal with child abuse cases. It's difficult to establish which rapes are connected to the cure myth, but prosecutors and other say the abuse of younger children since it began circulating has ``skyrocketed.'' Court officials try to ease the process for young victims who must testify. They provide separate rooms for them to testify on videotape so they don't have to face their abusers. But the fact that there are so many of them, coupled with their increasingly younger ages, makes it difficult to obtain convictions. ``The youngest we can put a child on the stand is three years and if we look for an actual trial date, it will be something like six months away,'' said Durban prosecutor Val Melis. ``You can't count on a child to remember details like that that far down the line.'' Meanwhile, back in Mpophomeni, teen counselor Mtembu holds another session to help youngsters cope with the trauma of rape--and to teach them ways they can protect themselves. But when asked what about that, one young girl answered: ``We just have to cry loudly and hope someone will hear us.''

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman is referring to sense of Congress provisions in the bill that have no binding implication. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, can he can respond to any provision in the bill that specifically facilitates with economic incentives small business investment or participation in partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, one of the primary barriers to investment in Africa is the lack of physical infrastructure; unnavigable roads, lack of electricity and no access to hospitals. These are just some of the examples of underdevelopment that make Africa less welcoming to investors. Support for investment projects in Africa must grapple with these fundamental barriers. The African Growth and Opportunity Act includes Overseas Private Investment Corporation financing in the amount of $500 million for projects in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there is no guarantee that this money will be used for projects that improve the standard of living for Africans in ways such as increased access to education, health care facilities, potable water and sanitation services. There is also no guarantee that African firms themselves will benefit from the financing. The fact that the gentlewoman from Texas had to offer an amendment for small firms is a good indication of where the present emphasis of the bill is left out and who is not included. I, therefore, offer this amendment to improve the OPIC provisions in the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It authorizes the same amount for OPIC funds, $500 million, but ensures that this financing benefits partnerships. The amendment would also target the financing and insurance to small firms. Multinational corporations do not need another handout. This amendment would make OPIC relevant to smaller firms in the U.S. and Africa that really need the investment support. The amendment would also ensure that projects supported by OPIC respect the environment and the local community. In the past, foreign investment in Africa has often led to development projects that drive people off their land and destroy the environment and the livelihoods of local residents. The African Growth and Opportunity Act should shoot higher for Africa. Infrastructure should be targeted for existing initiatives aimed at increasing citizens' access to schools, hospitals, electricity and potable water. This amendment will thus change the structure of OPIC and Export-Import Bank advisory boards to make OPIC funding accountable to these goals. The advisory boards will include experts in human rights, the environment, labor rights and development issues. This oversight will increase the likelihood that U.S. support for investment overseas will contribute to overall development objectives, facilitate business development in Africa, be responsive to local communities and respect the environment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank publicly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his out standing efforts in allowing us the opportunity to offer some critique to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I also want to make it very clear that many of my colleagues have stood here and said that this is a first step for Africa. Many of us have been trying to raise the bar in this Congress about what an appropriate first step would be. Not just a first step, we need to take ``the step'', the step that frees Africa and allows Africa to be an equal partner. We cannot do that if we use crushing debt as a basis for negotiating more favorable terms for U.S. corporations to grease the market for foreign investment in Sub-Saharan Africa without our standards and our values. Not just our money, we must also export our values in this particular instance.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the biggest criticism of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is that overwhelmingly these loans, as well as the insurance that is provided by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation only goes to very large multi national conglomerates in the United States. The Jackson amendment specifically makes it possible for Ex-Im to lend money to small businesses under $1 million and ensures the minority part of a partnership with Overseas Private Investment Corporation funds in order of establishment of a partnership between sub-Saharan Africans and Americans might indeed be initiated, and so the use of Ex- Im and OPIC in this particular instance is appropriate. I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to add that I did because I find it somewhat humorous that the many amendments that I offered, the only amendment that I offered to this was accepted was this particular amendment, and I received a letter early this morning as well as a phone call.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I received a letter very early this morning from the Vice President of Congressional Affairs at the Export-Import Bank who indicated in her letter that Ex-Im Bank is officially opposed to the Jackson amendment, and I just take great umbrage with that particular letter because the Vice President of Congressional Affairs just happens to be my wife, Sandy, and so when I go home this evening as a result of the vote on this amendment, one Jackson is going to be extremely proud and one is going to be extremely sad. So I want all of my colleagues to know they will not disappoint me one way or the other.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for an additional 15 seconds on both sides.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. May I have an additional 15 seconds? This is actually in support of the gentleman's point.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the bill. Three hundred eighty years ago, our Nation's first trade policy landed 19 Africans in Jamestown, Virginia. Since then our Nation has struggled with that painful and profound legacy. Undoubtedly the effects of trade are far reaching and long lasting. In many ways my presence here today and that of 33 million other Americans is the result of our Nation's first African trade policy. As I told a delegation from Gabon that came to visit my office yesterday, the blood that unites us runs deeper than the water that divides us. So as Congress considers a new trade policy with Africa for a new millennium, for many of us this issue is charged with strong emotions and deep convictions. There are people of good will and intentions on both sides. It is very rare, almost never, that I stand in opposition to a bill sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a man whom I have known and looked up to virtually all of my life and for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. We both want what is right and best for Africa. However, with respect to this rule, a dozen of my Democratic colleagues offered 20 amendments, all of which were rejected except for four, only one of which is not a nonbinding sense of Congress resolution. These amendments, which this restrictive rule would keep us from considering, did two things that are vital: Number one, cutting out of the African Growth and Opportunity Act terms that would cause damage, make things worse for, the majority of people in Africa, 750 million people whose per capita income is only $500 a year. But it is AGOA's ability to undermine the already harsh status quo of food security, access to health and education, control of natural resources and economic sovereignty in Africa that has moved me to this action. These are the provisions, mainly contained in AGOA's section 4, that led a broad array of Africa labor, religious, anti-hunger and other civic groups to reach out to me to develop an alternative to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Many amendments, from transshipment amendments, amendments with respect to eliminating debt, not senses of Congress but taking pressure, downward pressure off the sub-Saharan African wages so that they might be able to purchase what we produce here in America is a factor in an ongoing trading policy. A labor policy. Certainly after 380 years, the center of any trading relationship with sub-Saharan Africa would take African labor and workers very seriously. These amendments were rejected by the Committee on Rules. Other amendments were offered by other Members of Congress to deal with the issue of AIDS. Substantive amendments to prohibit the United States Government from bringing World Trade Organization action against sub-Saharan African countries that are seeking to provide low- cost drugs where more than 85 percent of all AIDS-related deaths since the early 1980s have occurred. These amendments to the African Growth and Opportunity Act were rejected. Instead, the Committee on Rules substituted nonbinding sense of Congress resolutions. There are no basic labor, no human rights, no African employment, no environmental rules for U.S. corporations planning to take advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Those of you who might be watching this on C-SPAN, go to your web site, www.USAfrica.org. There you will find United Meridian Corporation and Kmart and Amoco and Chevron and Tyco Submarine Systems, Mobil Corporation, the Gap, the Limited, National Retail Federation, a long list of corporations who plan to take advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This act is most appropriately titled U.S. Corporate and Foreign Investment in Africa Act of 1999, not growth for 750 million sub-Saharan Africans, many of whom my distinguished colleague the gentleman from New York identified. This is the poorest region of the world, with the richest land and the richest resources. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude on this point. The Chicago Tribune wrote an article just yesterday where they said the top three officers of Microsoft Corporation, Bill Gates, a Mr. Ballmer, a Paul Allen, their top personal assets from Microsoft come close to $140 billion. Their personal assets are more than the combined gross national product of the 43 least developed countries and their 600 million people. So what does it mean for a gentleman with the kind of wealth of a Bill Gates to just buy an entire industry on an entire continent with that kind of wealth? If we do not have restrictions in our law so that American investment in sub-Saharan Africa is done right, if that is the only point that I make today, American investment in sub-Saharan Africa in light of our history and in light of the condition of those people must be done right. This rule falls short of our ability as Members of Congress to make this a better bill so that more Americans can benefit. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support for an amendment that I actually am planning on withdrawing. I am proud to offer this amendment with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow the Illinois Department of Transportation to petition for 50 percent of increased PFC revenues authorized by this bill that will be earned by the Chicago Airport Authority so that PFC funds earned in Illinois will be used in a way that Congress originally intended. The stated purpose of the Passenger Facility 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.'' Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not impose extra fees on travelers through Chicago. It merely allows the State of Illinois the opportunity to share in additional PFC revenues provided by Air 21 to help meet the needs of all Illinois residents and honor Congress' intent. Authorizing a division of funds in this way between the city and the State allows for balanced growth. Appropriate use of PFCs has been an ongoing problem since they were instituted in 1990. The city of Chicago 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; that is, to increase capacity. Instead, the city uses the PFCs in a number of ways: Number one, to finance a $1 billion facelift at O'Hare Airport that will not ensure one new flight will land at that airport. In the district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) where Midway Airport is located, they are using the PFCs to finance a $7 million terminal expansion at Midway. This is Midway Airport. As Members can see, they have the longest runway, of 6,446 feet. 21st Century aircraft, 747s, 767s, and 777s, will never land, I say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) at Midway Airport. The runway is too short. It has always been too short. Therefore, the $76 million that are being used at parking lots and terminal expansion without increasing runway length or space between runways and taxiways at Midway Airport is just another example of how taxpayers and air travelers are paying resources, increased resources under Air 21, without enhancing capacity at some of our Nation's larger airports. This is Midway Airport. This is O'Hare Airport, under its present configuration. As Members can see, O'Hare Airport, while the busiest airport in the world, is in need of several major improvements in order to increase the length of its runways so that 21st century aircraft can land at this airport. Mr. Chairman, unless we use passenger facility charges in a way to expand runways, to lengthen runways, to lengthen the space between runways and taxiways, to take airspace more seriously and spacing between aircraft, and not just use the passenger facility charge for offsite airport projects, including the building of highways and light rail across our country, we will indeed never meet the expectations of Air 21.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would kindly respond to a question, there are no present plans, according to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), as heard earlier by most Members who were present and those who were listening by way of C-Span, indicating that one PFC dollar, according to the mayor of the city of Chicago, will be used for new runways; that not one PFC dollar would be used to expand the 6,446- foot runway at Midway Airport. My specific question is, since the mayor of the city of Chicago has indicated that PFC revenues will not be used to expand or lengthen runways, they are using most of the PFC revenues, if not all, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) said earlier, for offsite rail projects, offsite airport projects. I am interested in gentleman's position on capacity and expanding capacity consistent with the 1991 Act.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am a big supporter of Air 21 as well, and I have some technical amendments to the bill but I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I might, of our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). Most recently, the mayor of the busiest airport in the world, we claim, and the Governor had lunch with the Illinois delegation. The mayor indicated that the PFC funds would not go to new runways or runway expansion at O'Hare Airport. Is that the gentleman's recollection of the conversation?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for that response. One other question. Are there any of the PFC revenues, to the best of the gentleman's knowledge, being used to lengthen runways at Midway Airport?