William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, in supporting a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the administration should act swift and decisively if the European Union does not withdraw its unfair, discriminatory regulation restricting hush-kitted and reengined aircraft. In particular, the resolution strongly urges the administration to file an Article 84 complaint with the International Civil Aviation Authority, ICAO, so that it can be objectively determined whether the EU regulation violates international standards. On April 29, 1999, the European Council of Ministers adopted a resolution that will in effect ban the operation of former State 2 aircraft that has been modified either with hushkits or new engines to meet the Stage 3 international noise standards. The Europeans claim that the hushkit regulation is needed to provide noise relief to residents living around airports in crowded European cities. However, the European Union has not provided any technical evidence that would demonstrate and improve noise or emissions climate around airports as a result of this rule. This is not an environmental regulation, as the Europeans suggest. Rather, this re-regulation is an unfair unilateral action that discriminates against U.S. products and severely undermines international noise standards set by ICAO. By unilaterally establishing a new regional standard for noise, the EU is taking local control over an international issue. In addition, the EU has done this in such a way that the regulation most adversely impacts U.S. carriers, U.S. products and U.S. manufacturers. The House of Representatives has already expressed its strong opposition to this misguided regulation by passing H.R. 661, the bill introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), which would ban the operation of the Concorde in the U.S.A. Passage of H.R. 661, I believe, showed the Europeans that the United States is serious about protecting U.S. aviation interests against unfair unilateral trade actions. As a result, the effective date of the EU regulation was postponed until May 2000 in an attempt to accommodate the concerns of the United States. Yet although the implementation date was delayed for a year, the regulation was adopted and is now law. As a result, the regulation is already having a negative economic impact on U.S. aviation. The regulation has raised serious doubts about the future market for hushkitted and re-engined aircraft, which in turn has already lessened the value of these aircraft and has put a halt to new hushkit orders. This is why the EU regulation must be completely withdrawn. My understanding is that the European Parliament will not consider withdrawing the regulation until significant progress is made on Stage 4, the next generation noise standard. The U.S. is already working with the EU through ICAO on defining and implementing a Stage 4 noise standard. Let me state for the Record that the United States is fully committed to the development of a Stage 4 noise standard, however it is difficult to move forward towards a new noise standard while the EU hushkit regulation is still on the books. With its hushkit regulation the EU ignores its priority agreements with ICAO and has developed its own regional restrictions. Given this, it will be nearly impossible to convince the 185 countries of ICAO to agree to a new noise requirement on aircraft. Why would any carrier in any country want to invest in Stage 4 aircraft if any country in the world can also impose its own restrictions on aircraft? It simply does not make sense. Nevertheless the U.S. is working patiently with the Europeans on developing a Stage 4 noise standard. However, the ongoing discussions and negotiations could continue for weeks, if not months. Yet each day that the EU hushkit regulation remain on the books costs the U.S. aviation industry more money. For this reason the U.S. must challenge the EU regulation in an international forum. The United States must send a clear signal that it will now allow Europe to set international standards on its own. In particular, the U.S. Government should use the Article 84 process provided by the Chicago convention to resolve disputes between two or more States. The U.S. should file an Article 84 complaint at ICAO asking the international organization to determine whether the EU hushkit regulation violates its standards. This would demonstrate how serious the U.S. considers the issue. It would also show the EU that the United States has the support of the rest of the world on this very important aviation issue.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, a devastating earthquake struck Taiwan earlier this week. The quake was centered 90 miles south of Taipei in Nantou county. Registering 7.6 on the Richter scale, the quake has claimed more than 1,800 lives and destroyed hundreds of homes. Thousands more are believed to be trapped in the rubble, and the death toll is expected to increase. Aftershocks continue to rumble through Taiwan. The earthquake crippled Taiwan's infrastructure in the hardest hit areas. Phone, power and water lines were knocked out. Over 100,000 people were left homeless sleeping on blankets in makeshift shelter areas. Roads are barely usable as large gashes crisscross many of the main thoroughfares in central Taiwan making it extremely difficult for rescue workers to deliver aid. I understand that a number of Americans may have family or friends in Taiwan. Many of them may be extremely worried due to the lack of information and the inability to contact them by phone. I call upon the U.S. Department of State and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. Taiwan's de facto embassy in the U.S., to coordinate efforts to keep them informed of further developments and to provide all reasonable assistance in locating and determining the status of their family and friends. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the lead U.S. agency for international humanitarian efforts, has activated a team of 100 search and rescue personnel and 106,000 pounds of equipment. They have also provided a general information number that can be reached at 1- 800-USAID-RELIEF. I commend USAID for their swift and efficient response to this humanitarian disaster, and I am certain that they will continue to work closely with Taiwan to coordinate relief efforts. USAID has indicated the transportation of relief goods to Taiwan is very difficult and inefficient at this time, so monetary donations are preferred. To that end, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office established the ``Taiwan Earthquake Relief Fund'' for individuals interested in providing support. Donations can be made to Riggs Bank, account number 17306006, 1913 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20016. The U.S. is not the sole nation involved in the search and rescue effort. The response from the international community has also been swift. Switzerland, Germany, Singapore, Japan and Russia have all sent personnel and equipment to Taiwan to assist with search and rescue efforts. All the rescue teams are working non-stop to comb through the rubble in search of survivors. God bless them for their tireless and courageous efforts. My thoughts and prayers are with them all in the aftermath of this tragic disaster.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished community college located in my district, Morton College. Morton College, the second oldest community college in Illinois, recently celebrated their seventy-fifth anniversary. Morton College is a pioneer in the community college concept. Morton College serves various communities in my district, including Lyons, Berwyn, Cicero, McCook, and Stickney, Illinois. It was the people of these communities who in 1924 took note of the national movement towards junior colleges and established Morton College. It was originally housed on the third of floor of Morton High School in Cicero and came close to closing on various occasions, but was saved by the community residents. Since its creation, Morton College has grown from its enrollment of 76 students to 5,000 students. Morton College has shown its gratitude to the community by providing working-class students with an affordable, home-based access to a university degree. The school's nighttime, weekend, and summer courses allow students to have part-time and full-time jobs and is especially convenient for new immigrants, working parents, and those wishing to go ``back to school.'' Morton College's mission statement begins: ``As a comprehensive Community College, recognized by the Illinois Community College Board, Morton College has the mission to cultivate a dynamic learning environment for its students and the community * * *'' Morton College has continuously met and exceeded this high standard of excellency. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to celebrate Morton College's fine educational achievements and wish them continued success in the future. Please join me in recognizing and congratulating them on their seventy- five years of dedicated service.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to NAFTA's provisions to expand Mexican trucking privileges into the United States, and to introduce the Foreign Truck Safety Act, legislation that will mandate inspection of all foreign trucks at our southern border. When we debated NAFTA in 1993, supporters claimed that NAFTA would not harm workers here or in Mexico, and would not harm the environment. Unfortunately, they were wrong. This treaty has sent thousand of good American jobs south of the border. It has also subjected that border to increased pollution of the air, water and land. These are the most prominent promises broken by NAFTA. But we are about to add to the list. This Administration, under terms of NAFTA, is considering opening up all of America to Mexican trucks as of January 1, 2000. What will the entrance of Mexican trucks mean for America? It will generate more pollution and increase the loss of good paying jobs. Most seriously, it will threaten the lives of qualified American drivers who will be forced to share the road with unqualified foreign drivers, who, as evidence proves, are driving unsafe, pollution-belching trucks. U.S. inspectors, some operating just during the weekday hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, have found that almost 50% of inspected Mexican trucks have been ordered to undergo immediate service for safety problems. This is based on the results of the few inspections of foreign trucks already allowed to enter a commercial zone in the U.S. In reality, hordes of uninspected foreign trucks cross various border points after 5 pm, before 9 am, and on the weekends. Accordingly, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General has already concluded that the DOT does not have a consistent enforcement program to provide reasonable assurance of the safety of trucks entering the United States. How could this Administration suggest expanding border-trucking privileges when we cannot regulate the current privileges we offer? Unsafe trucks are not only appearing in the four border-states. But as the map here shows, reports of dangerous trucks have come from at least 24 additional states. From Washington to Illinois to New York, the entire country is at risk. That is why I am introducing the Foreign Truck Safety Act, because it will require mandatory safety inspections on all trucks crossing into the U.S. from Mexico. As of January 2, 2000, the Foreign Truck Safety Act will authorize the border states to impose and collect fees on trucks to cover the cost of these inspections. By requiring all trucks to pass inspections before entering the United States, we can help to limit the risks these unsafe trucks pose to our citizens. This country entered into NAFTA in order to better the lives of our citizens. Without this legislation, we will simply put our citizens in more jeopardy. I think people are more important than profit, and I am concerned about the thousands of unsafe Mexican trucks rumbling down our highways and byways. Average Americans are already fearful about driving next to large, safe U.S. trucks that pass inspections; imagine their fear when unsafe Mexican trucks hit our streets, roads, and superhighways. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up for Americans. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to work with me to pass the Foreign Truck Safety Act so that Americans will never be afraid to drive down Main Street, U.S.A.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that on August 14th Brookfield Zoo will celebrate the grand opening of its newest attraction, the Salt Creek Wilderness exhibit. Representing a northeastern Illinois wetland, Salt Creek Wilderness includes the existing Indian Lake, the Ellen Thorne Smith nature trail, and a new demonstration wetland exhibit called Dragonfly Marsh. Guests will be able to hike along a wood-chipped trail that circles the 4-acre lake to see trumpeter swans and several other waterfowl species. At the north end of the lake, the trail is paved and leads onto a wheelchair- accessible boardwalk that overlooks Dragonfly Marsh. Support for the Salt Creek Wilderness project comes from the Chicago Zoological Society, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Conservation Fund, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Urban Resources Partnership. With the assistance of these project partners, the new exhibit will help to raise awareness of the importance of protecting not just animals in other parts of the world, but also species and natural habitats in our own communities. Brookfield Zoo has always been a leader among zoos around the world. The zoo's mission is to focus on enhancing visitor understanding of the critical need for people to live more sustainable and harmoniously with the natural world through naturalistic environmental settings and accompanying interpretive materials. I invite all my colleagues to join me in celebrating the opening of the Salt Creek Wilderness exhibit, which, I am certain, will greatly strengthen the zoo's mission.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the bravery and valor exhibited by the veterans of the U.S. Navy Asiatic Fleet. From 1910 to 1942, the Asiatic Fleet protected American interests and promoted American ideals in the Far East. At the time, the fleet was comprised of 3 cruisers, 13 World War I vintage destroyers, 29 submarines and a small number of gunboats and patrol aircraft. Following the declaration of war against Imperial Japan, the outnumbered and outgunned Asiatic Fleet courageously fought against a vastly superior Japanese armada comprised of 10 carries, 28 cruisers, 113 destroyers, and 63 submarines. The fleet participated in the first surface U.S. naval engagement of World War II. Fighting with little aircover, the brave men and women of the fleet fought against all odds, but in the end they suffered staggering losses. The fleet lost 22 ships, 1826 killed, and 518 POWs. The U.S.S. Trinity was one of the few surviving ships. From September 1 to September 4, the surviving U.S.S. Trinity crew and their families will hold a reunion in Chicagoland. Although I will not be able to join them, I wish them all the best as they gather together to fellowship, renew their friendships, and cherish the thoughts of their fallen comrades. Protecting freedom and democracy has a price, and many of the brave Americans in the Asiatic Fleet paid the ultimate price. As Americans, we are truly blessed to have had so many extraordinary men and women serve in our armed forces. Their Sacrifices enables us to live in the world we live in today. So let us not forget their deeds. Let us not forget their blood, sweat, and tears. Let us remember the sacrifices they made, so that we may live in freedom instead of tyranny. I submit that the many untold stories of the Asiatic Fleet and the U.S.S. Trinity are all profiles of courage. Mr. Speaker, I salute them all today.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 57, a resolution to disapprove normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. It is clear to see that our trade deficit with China has skyrocketed over the years, and hundreds of thousands of good paying American jobs have been exported. In 1993 we had a $22 billion trade deficit with China. Last year the deficit was $60 billion. Thanks to this administration's misguided trade policies, we have traded away good paying American jobs. Mr. Speaker, over the years we have been bending over backwards for Beijing. I ask the question: Why? Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. J. Res. 57, a resolution to disapprove normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. It's clear to see that our trade deficit with China has skyrocketed over the years, and hundreds of thousands of good paying American jobs have been exported. In 1993, we had a $22 billion trade deficit with China. Last year, the deficit was $60 billion. Thanks to the Administration's misguided trade policies, we've traded away good paying American jobs. Mr. Speaker, over the years, we've been bending over backwards for Beijing. Why? They need us more than we need them. They need the American market. We have one of the strongest and wealthiest consumer markets in the world. They sell billions of dollars of their products in our market. They need us. They need America. But while they insist we open up more of our markets, they've steadfastly refused to open up theirs. Then why should we give NTR to China? Supporters argue that by staying engaged with China is the only way we can improve their behavior. But I would ask those supporters, in the last twenty years, have we seen any improvements? Has China improved their human rights record? No. They're still considered one of the most egregious offenders in the world. They prosecute Christians, throw pro-democracy activists in labor camps and gulags, and promote forced abortions and sterilization. Has China improved their unfair trade practices? No. They continue to keep out American products by imposing high trade barriers. They dump our shores with their cheap products, but won't allow us to fairly sell American goods in their market. Democratic Taiwan, a little island of only 23 million people, buys more American products than all of Communist China, a huge land mass of over 1.2 billion consumers. Has China been our friend in the international arena? No. They send spies over to steal our nuclear technology. They continue to threaten their democratic neighbors in the Pacific region. They recently renewed threats to keep Taiwan from declaring itself an independent state. They refuse to join international efforts to control nuclear proliferation. They continue to sell advanced missile technology to rogue nations. We've given China opportunity after opportunity to show their friendship. We've offered our hand in friendship, but they've refused to take it. They continue to confront us as enemies. A recent article in The People's Daily, a Communist controlled newspaper in China, the U.S. was likened to Nazi Germany. Is that the action of a friend? Mr. Speaker, extending NTR to China is not in line with our strategic interests, and it is not in line with American ideals. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution and against NTR for China.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, the FY 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, we have before us today a finely crafted piece of legislation that will fund the Army Corps of Engineer's civil works division and invest in our nation's water infrastructure. In my opinion, they have been successful in putting together a bill--under very demanding circumstances--that balances the infrastructure needs of this nation, the traditional mission of the Army Corps, and severe budgetary constraints. The end product is a vigorous funding bill that targets wise investments in water infrastructure projects. Included in the bill are three important projects for my constituents in the Third Congressional District of Illinois. The bill includes $640,000 for the Stoney Creek flood control project in Oak Lawn, $200,000 for the Natalie Creek flood control project in Midlothian and Oak Forest, and $150,000 for the Hickory Creek project in Tinley Park. These funds will be used to continue these ongoing Army Corps projects. These cost-effective projects will help protect property from future flooding damages, safeguard the environment, and improve our communities' standard of living. I would like to take this opportunity to express some concerns over the progress of those Corps projects, specifically the Section 205 Stoney Creek project in the Village of Oak Lawn. Over the years, there have been some delays. I understand that these are complex and technical projects and things do not always go according to plan, but every year this project is delayed means that another year the Village of Oak Lawn is exposed to extreme flooding risks. I strongly urge the Army Corps Chief of Engineers to expedite completion of this project. Moreover, I would hope that the Natalie Creek and Hickory Creek projects are completed in a reasonable amount of time. Also included in the bill is $13.129 million for the Chicago Shoreline project, which represents a $5.5 million increase over the Administration's request. My colleagues and I on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked to authorize this project in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. With nearly eight miles of Chicago's lakefront and over $5 billion worth of irreplaceable infrastructure and public property at risk, the importance to fully fund and expedite this particular project cannot be understated. The funding for FY 2000 will be utilized to reconstruct the seriously deteriorated revetments from Irving to Belmont, I-55 to 30th Street, 33rd to 37th Street, and 37th to 43rd Street. I commend the Army Corps of Engineers for the hard work put into drafting and finalizing the partnership agreement with the City of Chicago to expedite this project. The new 2005 completion date shortens the schedule by five years. Again, I thank Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their assistance and leadership in providing the necessary funding for the above projects. I urge all of my colleagues to pass H.R. 2605.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring an editorial from today's Chicago Tribune to the attention of my colleagues. The editorial is titled ``Holding Managed Care Accountable.'' I hope that my colleagues take the time to read this informative and interesting commentary. [From the Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1999] Holding Managed Care Accountable (By Philip H. Corboy) Chicago--John McCarron suggests that the best Congress can do for America's health-care system is to do nothing (``Medical malpractice? When Congress plays doctor, pray for gridlock,'' Commentary, July 12). Perhaps some agree with him that ``there's not much wrong with managed care.'' They may not have experienced a major medical crisis and the chance to see their HMO in action. Supporters of the Patients' Bill of Rights point to scores of incidents around the country. Workers pay for medical coverage for themselves and their families, then find that needed care is delayed or denied--even over the objections of their own doctors. Often the result is that the patient suffers more serious harm, or even death. Mr. McCarron's argument that this is the employer's fault for choosing the HMO is misguided. All managed-care plans have strong financial incentives to minimize care and maximize profits, which amounted to some $10.5 billion for the industry last year. There is no disincentive to keep administrators from interfering with patient care by denying needed services, understaffing or imposing cumbersome authorization requirements. Unlike every other private business or profession, employee managed-care plans cannot be sued and held accountable for the harm they cause. This unusual immunity is not something Congress intended, or even considered. In 1974 the legislature passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a complicated statute designed to promote and to protect employee pension funds. To avoid conflicting regulations, Congress pre-empted state law. As a result if a plan denies or delays testing for a premature baby at high risk for retinopathy and the child becomes permanently blind, the maximum amount of compensation that the parents can recover is the cost of the test itself. To avoid this harsh result, Congress should fix the problem it created. The industry's primary strategy in its fight to keep its special immunity has been to frighten Americans with dire predictions of a flood of lawsuits and skyrocketing premiums. Fortunately Americans can see for themselves what happens when managed care is made accountable. For example, ERISA does not apply to government workers. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation of approximately 1 million government workers in California from 1991 to 1997 found that only 20 had filed lawsuits. The study estimated that permitting liability actions added only between 3 and 13 cents to each policyholder's monthly premium. In 1997 Texas enacted a statute that created an external review for managed-care decisions and allowed patients to sue their HMOs. The number of lawsuits that have flooded Texas courts: three. The Texas Department of Insurance, the designated external review board, predicted that there would be 4,400 complaints in the first year. Only 531 were registered, 46 percent of which were resolved in favor of the patients. Texans' liability premiums are almost exactly what they were in 1995. Missouri also chose in 1997 to allow liability suits. So far there have been none. The experience in Texas and Missouri suggests that the deterrent effect of legal accountability has encouraged managed-care insurers to provide better patient care. Doctors, unions and groups that represent patients, consumers, veterans and seniors all support the Patients' Bill of Rights. They want more accountability for managed- care plans. The industry claims that it needs immunity to save money, which keeps premiums low. Yet in many cases delay necessitates a much more expensive and risky course of treatment. Congress should do something. Close the loopholes that encourages managed-care bureaucrats and administrators to interfere with doctors caring for patients.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the fiscally irresponsible tax cut bill we have before us today. More importantly, I strongly support this motion to recommit that instructs the Ways and Means Committee to reduce the size of the tax cut to one-quarter of the on-budget surplus and creates an account to lock up half of the on- budget surplus for debt reduction. As a fiscal conservative who wants to lower interest rates and reduce the debt for future generations, I welcomed the renewed emphasis given to deficit and debt reduction when the Republicans took over Congress. Unfortunately, the majority party has lost track of the fiscal conservative roots and now wishes to spend almost of the projected surplus on tax cuts. I emphasize the word ``projected'' because the surplus has yet to materialize, and I think it is fiscally imprudent to spend money we do not yet have. As some of my like-minded Democratic colleagues have pointed out, budget projections for the next ten years have improved by nearly $2 trillion in the last twelve months, and the rosy projections could turn gloomy just as quickly. While my voting record shows that I generally support tax cuts, I believe this is not the proper time, place, or source of money for a tax cut of such magnitude. The Congressional Budget Office's projected $996 billion surplus in the next 10 years assumes that all of the surplus will be saved for debt reduction, thereby reducing the interest payments we have to make on our $5.6 trillion debt. However, if we spend any part of that surplus, additional payments for debt service would automatically be triggered. Therefore, the $792 billion tax cut we have before us today will actually have a price tag in the area of $940 billion. This leaves almost no money to lower the debt or to pay for vital programs that Americans hold dear. By only spending 25 percent of the surplus on tax cuts, we can still save a majority of the surplus for debt reduction, with some money going to domestic and defense programs, and some money in emergency reserve for Social Security and Medicare. However, I believe that any use of the surplus--whether it be for tax cuts, domestic programs, or Social Security--should be put off until we actually have a surplus. We would take great risks and send a bad message to future generations if we spend even one cent of an un-yet-realized surplus. So, Mr. Speaker, let's not be fiscally imprudent and rashly give to much of the surplus away in tax cuts. We should do what is right for the future of this country and vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay my respects and honor a community leader and loyal Democrat, Mr. Frank J. Baley. Frank Baley passed away on Saturday, July 10, 1999 at the age of sixty-nine. Frank Baley was a devoted public servant and a leader of the Village of Stickney for ten years. He began his political career as a Democratic precinct captain and later served as a member of the Stickney Library Board. In 1965, he was elected Democratic committeeman of Stickney Township and remained a member of the Stickney Township Regular Democratic Organization until his death. He was elected a trustee on the Stickney Village Board in 1966, and held that position for twenty-three years before being elected village president in 1989. In addition to his political career, Mr. Baley was an insurance and real estate broker. He also held various positions with the Cook County assessor's office and the clerk of the Circuit Court, where he served as the director of the criminal division. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to pay tribute to Mr. Baley. As a valuable and revered public servant and community leader, he will be greatly missed.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to NAFTA and its provisions to expand Mexican trucking privileges into the United States. When we debated NAFTA in 1993, supporters claimed that NAFTA would not harm American workers and workers in Mexico and would not harm the environment. Unfortunately, they were wrong. This treaty has sent thousands of good American jobs south of the border and it has subjected that border to increased pollution of the air, water and land. Mexican workers are being abused and are not reaping the financial or social benefits they were promised. And America is being abused by other countries that are sneaking goods into the United States through dummy Mexican corporations. These are the most prominent promises broken by NAFTA. But we are about to add to the list. This administration, under terms of NAFTA, is considering opening up all of America to Mexican trucks as of January 1, 2000. What will the entrance of Mexican trucks mean for America? It will generate more pollution and increase the loss of good-paying American jobs. Most seriously, it will threaten the lives of qualified American drivers who will be forced to share the road with unqualified foreign drivers who, as evidence proves, are driving unsafe, pollution-belching trucks. U.S. inspectors, some operating just during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. have found that almost 50 percent of inspected Mexican trucks have been ordered to undergo immediate service for safety problems. This is based on the results of the few inspections of trucks already allowed to enter a commercial zone in the U.S. In reality, hordes of unexpected foreign trucks cross various border points after 5 p.m. and before 9 a.m. in the morning and on the weekends when there are no inspectors available. Accordingly, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General has already concluded that the DOT does not have a consistent enforcement program to provide reasonable assurance of the safety of trucks entering the United States. How could this administration suggest expanding border trucking privileges when we cannot regulate the current privileges we offer? Unsafe trucks are not only appearing in the four border States, but as this map here shows, reports of dangerous trucks have come from at least 24 additional States. From Washington to Illinois to New York, the entire country is at risk. Therefore, very soon I plan on introducing the Foreign Truck Safety Act, legislation that will require mandatory safety inspections on all trucks crossing into the United States from Mexico. As of January 2, 2000, the Foreign Truck Safety Act will authorize the border States to impose and collect fees on trucks to cover the cost of these inspections. By requiring all trucks to pass inspections before entering the United States, we can help to limit the risks these unsafe trucks pose to our citizens. This country entered into NAFTA in order to better the lives of our citizens. Without this legislation, we will simply put our citizens in more jeopardy. I think people are more important than profits, and I am concerned about the thousands of unsafe Mexican trucks rumbling down our highways and biways. Average Americans already are fearful about driving next to large safe U.S. trucks that pass inspections. Imagine their fears when unsafe Mexican trucks hit our streets, roads and superhighways. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up for Americans. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to work with me to pass the Foreign Truck Safety Act so that Americans will never be afraid to drive down Main Street USA.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, recently in my home state of Illinois, the State Senate and the State House of Representatives adopted Senate Joint Resolution 39 urging the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the Older Americans Act for the upcoming fiscal year. I would like to commend the Illinois Legislature for their dedication to the elderly in their state and urge the 106th Congress to support the elderly of the country by reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. I enter into the Record Senate Joint Resolution No. 39. Whereas, The Older Americans Act promotes the dignity and value of every older person age 60 and over (numbering 2,000,000 in Illinois) through an Aging Network led by the Illinois Department of Aging, 13 area agencies on aging, 233 community-based senior service agencies and 63 nutrition services agencies throughout Illinois; and Whereas, The Older Americans Act is a successful federal program, with the U.S. Administration on Aging offering leadership in Washington D.C., the Illinois Department on Aging (the first state department on aging in the nation) at the State level, the area agencies on aging in 13 regions designated by the State covering all of Illinois, and community-based senior service agencies providing services in every community; and Whereas, The Older Americans Act programs target resources and services to those in greatest economic and social need, promote the dignity and contributions of our senior citizens, support transportation services, provide home care, assist families and individuals with case management, guide those challenged by the legal system through legal assistance, provide for senior community service employment, offer information and assistance, establish multi-purpose senior centers as focal points on aging, serve congregate luncheon and home-delivered meals, provide health promotion and disease prevention activities, involve older persons in nutrition education, reach out to families with respite services for caregivers and small repair and home modifications, provide opportunities, education and services, connect people in shared housing, and advocate to public and private policy makers on the issues of importance to older persons; and Whereas, The success of this aging network over the past 31 years is marked by the delivery of significant service to older persons in their own homes and community with the following services examples of that success: (1) 374,538 recipients of access services, including 235,148 Information and Assistance Services clients and 68,493 recipients of Case Management Services; (2) 53,450 recipients of in-home services, including 6,460,533 home-delivered means to 41,305 elders; (3) 185,520 recipients of community services, including 3,636,855 meals to 79,012 congregate meal participants at 647 nutrition sites and services delivered from 170 Senior Centers; (4) 760 recipients of employment services, including 760 senior community service employment program participants; and (5) 98,600 recipients of nursing home ombudsman services; and Whereas, The organizations serving older persons employ professionals dedicated to offering the highest level of service and caring workers who every day provide in-home care, rides, educational and social activities, shopping assistance, advice, and hope to those in greatest isolation and need; and Whereas, The organizations serving older persons involve a multi-generational corps of volunteers who contribute the governance, planning, and delivery of services to older persons in their own communities through participation on boards and advisory councils and in the provision of clerical support, programming, and direct delivery of service to seniors; and Whereas, The Older Americans Act programs in Illinois leverage local funding for aging services and encourage contributions from older persons; and Whereas, The Older Americans Act programs are the foundation for the Illinois Community Care Program which reaches out to those with the lowest incomes and the greatest frailty to provide alternatives to long-term care, and the Illinois Elder Abuse and Neglect Interventions Program which assists families in the most difficult of domestic situations with investigation and practical interventions; and Whereas, The Congress of the United States has not reauthorized the Older Americans Act since 1985 and only extends the program each year through level appropriations; and Whereas, Expansion of the Older Americans Act is proposed in reauthorization legislation this year to offer family caregiver support, increased numbers of home-delivered meals, improved promotion of elder rights, consolidation of several programs and subtitles of the law; therefore be it Resolved, by the Senate of the Ninety-First General Assembly of the State of Illinois, the House of Representatives concurring herein, That we urge the Congress of the United States of America to reauthorize the Older Americans Act this year; and be it further Resolved, That suitable copies of this resolution be delivered to the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and each member of the Illinois congressional delegation. Adopted by the Senate, May 26, 1999. Concurred in by the House of Representatives, May 27, 1999.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues, sixteen outstanding young individuals from the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois, who have completed a major goal in their scouting career. The following young men of the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois have earned the high rank of Eagle Scout in the past months: George C. Hollich, Jason Staidl, Scott Joschko, Edward A. Distel, Joseph Jania, Erik A. Koster, Robert J. Landers, Jr., Thomas X. Polanski, Geoffrey Nikiel, Daniel S. Kantorski, Steve A. Debnar, Marc T. Sands, David Kantorski, Kyle Rusnak, Mark Dries, and Brian E. Backstrom. These young men have demonstrated their commitment to their communities, and have perpetuated the principles of scouting. It is important to note that less than two percent of all young men in America attain the rank of Eagle Scout. This high honor can only be earned by those scouts demonstrating extraordinary leadership abilities. In light of the commendable leadership and courageous activities performed by these fine young men, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the above scouts for attaining the highest honor in Scouting-- the Rank of Eagle. Let us wish them the very best in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. LIPINSKI

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, my recollection of the conversation is that the mayor said that he would not use PFC funds to expand any runways at O'Hare Airport. That is my recollection of what he had to say. The mayor has said on numerous occasions he has no intentions of expanding any runways at O'Hare or adding any new runways at O'Hare.

Mr. LIPINSKI. To the best of my knowledge, this is not being done. The PFCs are not being used for any runways at Midway Airport. The PFC money is being utilized in the new terminal and in other improvements at a terminal facility.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to say that I rise in strong support of this rule. Madam Speaker, I would like to comment upon a few statements made by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) as it pertains principally to the Jackson-Hyde amendment which we will be dealing with later on today. First of all, PFCs are collected locally and spent locally. The Jackson-Hyde amendment is an unprecedented attack on local authority. The law establishing the PFC clearly states that only FAA-recognized airports or airport authorities can collect and distribute PFC revenue. The city of Chicago is the airport authority for both O'Hare Airport and Midway Airport. The Illinois Department of Transportation, the beneficiary of the Jackson-Hyde amendment, has tried before to grant the PFC revenue collected by the city of Chicago. In that case the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, ruled that the Illinois Department of Transportation had no rights to the revenues collected by the city of Chicago. In fact, the court stated that PFC revenues belonged to the agency levying the charges, in this case the city of Chicago. They do not belong to the Illinois Department of Transportation or any other organ of the State. The Illinois Department of Transportation controls neither the airports, which are controlled by a municipal authority, the city of Chicago, nor the airspace, a Federal responsibility. The Hyde-Jackson amendment would set a precedent allowing entities that do not participate in the operations of airports to benefit from the PFC revenue. It is airport operators, not State agencies, that know how to best use scarce aviation funds. The city of Chicago has wisely used its PFC revenues to address pressing airport needs. As is required by law, PFC revenues collected by the city of Chicago have only been used on projects approved by the FAA. The city of Chicago began collecting PFCs in 1992, and since that time has had FAA approval for more than well over $700 million to rehabilitate and improve existing runways and taxiways, and more than $300 million to soundproof schools and homes surrounding O'Hare and Midway Airport. I would like to run that by my colleagues once again. There has been $300 million from the PFCs set aside to soundproof schools and homes surrounding O'Hare and Midway Airport. The city of Chicago also used PFC funds to build shared- or common- use gates that ensure access for any carrier wishing to serve the airport. This has helped foster competition at both O'Hare and Midway Airport and is a very important ingredient in this debate. Midway Airport is beginning a $762 million development program to replace the 50-year-old terminal at the airport. Midway Airport has an airfield that can accommodate as many as 8.5 million enplanements. Unfortunately, the terminal was built and later renovated to accommodate only 1.1 million annual passengers. By improving the terminal building, Midway will be able to utilize its operational capacity. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) when he spoke here a few minutes ago on the rule mentioned that neither O'Hare nor Midway will be able to accommodate the soon-to-be-built new generation of larger ``series 6'' aircraft. O'Hare's main runways range from 13,000 feet to 10,000 feet and can easily accommodate today's largest aircraft. The Boeing 747-400 and the 777 all fly into and out of O'Hare on a regular basis. Midway's largest runway is 6,500 feet and Boeing's 757-200s regularly fly in and out of Midway. In fact, ATA Airlines has started the one-stop service to Ireland using the 757-200; and once customs facilities are constructed at Midway, they will begin nonstop international service. In conclusion, I would simply say, in Governor Ryan's inaugural address, he made mention of the fact that the State of Illinois wanted no PFC money from O'Hare Airport or Midway Airport to build Piatone. The problem with accommodating larger aircraft is not a matter of runway capacity, but rather gate capacity. Most airport gates are not built wide enough to accommodate the bigger aircraft. Fortunately, the City of Chicago is planning on using PFC revenues to build 2 new terminals at O'Hare that will be able to accommodate the larger aircraft being built today. The City of Chicago is not using PFC revenue as Congress intended. Once again, the City of Chicago has used PFC revenue on FAA approved projects only. Each project in some way enhanced safety or capacity, reduced noise, or enhanced competition as the law directs. Study the list of projects for yourself. Listed below are capacity improvements that have been made at both O'Hare and Midway. Any taxiway and hold pad improvements are designed to eliminate ground congestion and delays. O'Hare has seen a 40% reduction in delays during the past decade, much of this is attributable to the reduction of ground congestion. The other projects maintain the operational capacity of the airports. O'Hare International Airport $6.8 million on Runway 27L hold pad (April-October 1993) $3.1 million to rehabilitate Runway 4R/22L (June-December 1993) $10 million to rehabilitate Runway 9R/27L (March-August 1996) $8.8 million on shoulder and edge lighting on Runway 14L/32R (June- November 1996) $26 million on new north airfield hold pad (July '94-April '97) $3.3 on Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) lighting panel (June '95- August '97) $7.9 million to rehabilitate Runway 4L/22R (July-November 1997) $14.9 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 14R/32L (May-December 1997) $12.9 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 9R/27L (September '97-September '98) $1.7 million to rehabilitate Runway 4R/22L (May-October 1998) $11.7 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 14L/32R (April-December 1998) $9.9 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 4R/22L (June-December 1998) $5.5 million for terminal apron pavement rehabilitation (June '98- December '01) Projects at Midway Airport $4.3 million to rehabilitate Runway 4L/22R (June-December 1995) $900 thousand to rehabilitate Runway 13L/31R (May-November 1996) $421 thousand on airfield lighting control panel (August '96-July '98)

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the full committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, or Air 21. This is an historical piece of legislation that will unlock the aviation trust fund, allowing aviation taxes to be used to fund aviation infrastructure needs. The United States has the best aviation system in the world. It also has the busiest aviation system in the world. Since airline deregulation in 1978, the number of people flying has nearly tripled, from 230 million annually to 600 million last year. Passenger traffic is projected to reach 660 million this year, and approximately 1 billion in the next 10 years. Even today, the FAA estimates that at any one time, there can be as many as 5,800 flights in the air over the United States. Unfortunately, at the same time that record levels of passengers are traveling, capacity constraints are threatening gridlock at our national aviation system. Our aging air traffic control system and our aging airports are having difficulty keeping up with the increased demand. In 1998, for example, 23 percent of all major air carrier flights were delayed 15 minutes or more. Delays caused by air traffic control equipment accounted for 22 percent of these delays, an increase of 9 percent from the previous year. In fact, last year alone there were 101 significant air traffic control outages which most often resulted in the FAA holding airplanes on the ground, keeping passengers waiting and waiting in the terminal or on the taxiway. If nothing is done, delays and congestion will only get worse. Increased delays will mean less predictability in the airlines' schedules, which are already padded to account for some delays. We cannot afford to have an aviation system that is so unreliable that it is not practical for users. This is why we need Air 21. By spending aviation taxes on aviation needs, Air 21 significantly increases investment in our nation's airports, runways, and air traffic control system today so our aviation system is ready for the increased demands of tomorrow. Modernizing our air traffic control system is key to increasing the capacity of our national air aviation system. It is only through advanced technology that more airplanes will be able to share the same airspace safely and effectively. For this reason, Air 21 provides $11.5 billion through the year 2004 for the FAA's facilities and equipment program, which purchases equipment for the modernization of the air traffic control system. The FAA already has several important projects underway to replace and improve computers, radars, communication systems, and other vital components of the air traffic control system. However, major systemwide changes and improvements can take many years to develop and implement. Yet, in order to plan long-term improvements, the FAA needs a reliable stream of funding in order to know that it can see a project through from start to finish. In fact, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, in a speech to the National Press Club, stated that one of the most important things that can be done to support the FAA modernization efforts is to stabilize the agency's funding. Air 21 does exactly what is needed. It provides a steady, reliable stream of funding for the FAA and its air traffic control modernization projects. In addition to modernizing the air traffic control system, improvement and expansion of our nation's airports is needed to improve capacity. Even if we can accommodate more planes in the air, they all still need to find a place to land. Too many planes fighting for limited airport gates often leaves passengers waiting on the taxiway. Therefore, Air 21 increases the Airport Improvement Program, or AIP, to $4 billion in fiscal year 2001. The AIP program is vital to airports of all sizes throughout the Nation. The AIP program provides Federal grants to fund needed safety, security, capacity, and noise projects. Air 21 also authorizes local airport authorities to raise their passenger facility charges from $3 to $6. The PFC has been an important funding source for local airport authorities that need to do important airport improvements that may not be eligible for AIP funds. For example, AIP funds cannot be used to fund construction of terminal or gate improvements at airports. Fortunately, local airports have been able to use revenues collected through the PFC to build shared or common use gates which can be used by any air carrier wishing to serve the airport. Such projects have helped increased capacity at the airports, as well as competition. In conclusion, I want to compliment the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, my very good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for the outstanding work and cooperation they have done on this bill. I think only with the leadership of this committee have we been able to bring this bill to the floor of the House in such a unified fashion, and a bill that is good for aviation, not only today but all the way to the 21st century. The Chairman. Without objection, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) will control the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) until his return.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I support the manager's amendment totally and completely. I am very delighted that the Speaker of the House, my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), is going to support this bill. Of course, also my very good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader of the House is going to support this bill. I also want to make mention of the fact that I think that the staff have done an outstanding job on both sides of the aisle in regards to this bill. There has been a lot of changes, a lot of improvements. A tremendous amount of work has been done by Jack Schenendorf, Dave Schaffer, Paul Feldman, and all of the members of the Subcommittee on Aviation and all of the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I salute them all, and I thank them all. Once again, I say I strongly support this manager's amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, the question really is are we going to spend all the money out of the Aviation Trust Fund on aviation. If my colleagues think that it should be spent on aviation, as it was intended to be spent, then they should vote against this amendment. Right now we have a $9 billion surplus in the Aviation Trust Fund. As was mentioned earlier, if we do not defeat this amendment, it is going to grow to $90 billion over the course of 10 years, money the American people have paid into the trust fund for aviation safety, capacity, overall improvement, overall development. Now the other part of the question is is there going to be a contribution from the General Revenue Fund? Now, there should be a contribution from the General Revenue Fund because someone has to pay for the military and their use of the aviation system; governments, for their use of the aviation system; and for years 39 percent of the budget for aviation came out of the General Revenue Fund. It has been cut down recently to 32 percent. With our AIR 21 bill, it is going to be cut down to 23 percent. So, if my colleagues believe that the military, government have an obligation to aviation, 23 percent of the overall bill that we are passing, should be a reasonable amount to come out of the General Revenue Fund, and if my colleagues believe like so many of them say, that they believe all money should be spent out of the Aviation Trust Fund, that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund for aviation, they should vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I oppose this amendment and believe in fairness. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment that will strike the general fund payment as well as the off-budget provisions from AIR 21. By unlocking the aviation trust fund and maintaining the general fund payment at the 1998 level, AIR 21 is able to significantly increase funding for aviation infrastructure needs without squeezing out funding for other federal programs. This will not be the case if this amendment passes. Every American, whether he or she knows it or not, benefits from our national aviation system. The safe and efficient operation of a strong national aviation system allows our national economy to grow and thrive. As a result, the general fund contribution to aviation is more than justified. The general fund payment is used to fund a variety of FAA services that benefit society as a whole, such as safety regulation and certification and security activities to protect against terrorist attacks on U.S. aircraft. The general fund payment also reimburses the FAA for services it provides to military and other government aircraft that do not pay aviation taxes but still use the system. There is no good reason to eliminate the general fund contribution to aviation. This is especially true under AIR 21 since the bill freezes the general fund contribution at 1998 levels, which results in a 23 percent average general fund share for the FAA. This is down from historic levels of 39 percent and recent levels of 32 percent. The infrastructure needs of our national aviation system are tremendous. More and more people are flying each day but our aging air traffic control system and aging airports can hardly keep up with demand. Increased funding is needed today to make sure that our aviation system can handle increased demands tomorrow and in the future. The supporters of this amendment recognize this need for increased funding because they leave AIR 21 funding levels intact. However, because this amendment does not take the aviation trust fund off-budget, the needed increases in aviation spending will squeeze out other discretionary federal programs under this amendment. The only way not to squeeze out other discretionary spending under this amendment would be to underfund aviation programs. This is clearly unacceptable and this is why we need AIR 21 as it is--with a modest general fund payment and off-budget provisions that will allow aviation taxes to be spent on aviation infrastructure needs but will not negatively affect other federal discretionary programs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the gentleman asked me a question earlier in regard to what Mayor Daley had to say at a meeting of the Illinois delegation. He made the statement that he would not use any of the PFC money for the extension of runways or additional runways at O'Hare Airport. I said to the gentleman, that is what I heard him say, but that is all I agreed to. I didn't say anything about off the airport or anything like that.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, in regard to this particular amendment, I can certainly understand the position of the gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hyde, but I definitely disagree with them. I very strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Oberstar) made mention, the law states that money collected by an airport or an airport authority is to be spent at that airport or by that airport authority. The gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hyde, want to move the ability to spend PFC money collected at Midway or O'Hare to the State of Illinois. The State of Illinois has tried once before to do this. A Federal appellate court has turned them down and said that this would be illegal. The money must be spent at O'Hare and Midway Airport. On top of that, though, the new outstanding Republican Governor of Illinois, Mr. George Ryan, has categorically stated privately and publicly that he wants no PFC money from Midway Airport or from O'Hare Airport to go into any other airport in the State of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a very nice blown-up picture there of Midway Airport. If the gentleman went a little bit farther west, the gentleman would even have my home in that picture. Unfortunately, the gentleman did not manage to do that. But the gentleman did mention the fact that we are spending a lot of money on building a new terminal at Midway Airport. The gentleman said that this is not going to increase capacity. That is an error on gentleman's part. The new terminal being built on the east side of Cicero Avenue will enable us to install 12 new gates at Midway Airport. This will definitely increase the capacity at Midway Airport. Right now Midway Airport emplanes about 1.1 million people a year. With the new terminal and the new gates and the increased availability of that facility to people all over Chicagoland, we will have a capacity of close to 8 million emplanements a year. So I say to my good friend, the gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hyde, that I understand their amendment, but their amendment goes against everything that the PFC has gone for in the past. I ask my colleagues here today, if this comes to a vote, to strongly reject this amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Graham amendment which will strike the provision in AIR21 that allows local airports to increase their passenger facility charge from $3 to $6. In 1990, when the PFC was established, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and I worked very diligently in its behalf. We were the strongest supporters of the PFC in this House of Representatives. I today am still one of its strongest supporters. PFCs are a critical local source of funding for airport infrastructure. Unfortunately, PFCs are the only type of local revenue that is capped by the Federal Government. I want to run that by my colleagues once again. Unfortunately, PFCs are the only type of local revenue that is capped by the Federal Government. However, just because the Federal Government sets the cap on PFCs, it does not mean that PFCs are a Federal tax and that an increase in PFCs is a Federal tax increase. PFCs are not collected by the Federal Government, are not spent by the Federal Government, and are never deposited in the U.S. Treasury. Rather, PFCs are collected locally, spent locally, and fund important local airport projects. Unlike a Federal tax, the PFC is paid only by air passengers who use and benefit from the airport. PFC revenues allow local airports to fund needed safety, security, capacity, competition, and noise projects that otherwise would have to wait years for Federal AIP funds or may not be eligible for AIP funds. For example, many airports throughout the Nation have used PFC revenues to build shared and common use gates which can be used by any carrier wishing to serve the airport. The additional gates which are not eligible under the AIP program have helped increase the capacity of the airports as well as help increase competition, which is very, very important today. Because local airport authorities best know their airport and how it operates, they also know the best way to use scarce aviation funding sources. PFCs are the most often used on projects that provide tangible benefits to passengers using the airport, increasing the comfort and convenience of air travel. It is important to note that PFCs are not just a free pot of money for local airport authorities. PFCs cannot be collected until a local airport needing funding is identified, and they must expire after a specific project is completed, and it must be planned from beginning to completion. In addition, PFCs cannot be spent on just any airport project, but only on specific eligible airport development projects approved by the FAA. Please, I ask my colleagues all to oppose this amendment.