William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman refers to the State legislature in the Illinois Aeronautics Act. It is my understanding reading it and talking to other people about it that the Illinois legislature is not involved in the process at the present time. It is exclusively the Governor's office with its arbitrary veto power and then the Department of Transportation which he controls on the channeling acts. The legislature is not involved in the process at the present time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am saying my position is simply expressing to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) what my understanding is of the Aeronautics Act in the State of Illinois. The legislature is not involved.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of charges made here on the floor, one of which is that this bill will prevent Peotone from ever being built. There is nothing in this legislation that prevents Peotone from being built if there is a need for Peotone. Some people wanted in this legislation, for the United States House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States to say we have to build Peotone. We cannot do that. That is not right. If we did that, we would have every airport that had a conflict in the country coming over here to see us trying to legislate their problem out of existence. We do not do that for O'Hare Airport in this legislation either. Expanding and modernizing O'Hare Airport does not become a Federal law until the Federal Aviation Administration has signed off on it. We also have an airport in Rockford. We have an airport in Gary. Airports that have already been established. In all deference to the gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), (Mr. Weller), Peotone at the present time is a corn field. They have been asking commercial air carriers for years to agree to come down to Peotone and operate out of Peotone. As of this moment they still do not have one single air carrier who has been willing to say they would go down and operate out of Peotone. They talk about relocating individuals because of O'Hare's expansion. If you were to build Peotone, you would relocate almost three times as many individuals as you will by expanding and modernizing O'Hare Airport. The only way to solve the aviation gridlock problem in this country is by modernizing and expanding O'Hare Airport. If the capacity needs grow that much greater in the future, put some of that commercial aviation into Gary, put some of it into Rockford, build Peotone. Nothing in this legislation prevents Peotone from being built. This is the one piece of legislation that this Congress will act upon this year that can truly expand aviation capacity in this country and for the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for this very, very good rule dealing with this important piece of legislation. I sincerely appreciate it, and I am sure so does the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Also, the Committee on Rules has given us just about what we would like. I also would like to put on the record that the Republican leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), have really gone out of their way to craft a bill that is really bipartisan. I appreciate that very much, and I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) does also. This is a bill that is, as is often said, finely crafted, and because of that, it is necessary for the leadership of the committee on both sides of the aisle to oppose any amendment that will break that finely crafted balance. But I think it is a very good rule. I appreciate what the leadership of the committee on the Republican side has done to accommodate us on the Democratic side, and I have to say that even though I am happy to see that we have a number of amendments that will be presented, because I think they are very well-intentioned amendments, I will have to oppose each and every one of them.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to say that I thank first of all the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for all the hard work that he put in, together with the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), for the work that they put in to craft a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. As I mentioned earlier when I was speaking on the rule, I sincerely appreciate the degree of cooperation that we received, both from the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica). I think they went out of their way to bring this bill to the floor in a manner that can be supported by the overwhelming majority of both the Democrats and the Republicans on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, when this issue of arming pilots came up after the horrific September 11 attacks, there was considerable debate on both sides of the aisle as to whether or not we should allow pilots to be armed. The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001, which we passed in November of 2001, left a decision on lethal or nonlethal weapons in cockpits up to the Transportation Security Administration and the airlines by which the respective pilots are employed. However, in May of 2002, the TSA decided against arming pilots with lethal weapons. About the same time, there was a movement within the pilots' union and the committee leadership on the other side of the aisle to force the TSA's hand and allow pilots to voluntarily arm themselves. However, at a congressional hearing on the subject in May, many questions arose as to exactly how to arm the pilots. Subsequent conversation with the pilots' union brought forth the same questions, questions such as: Has there been full testing of bullets being fired in the cockpit and in the cabin to determine what damage might be done to the fuselage and the cockpit? Have there been simulated tests of where to best place and store the guns in or out of the cockpit so as to ensure that terrorists do not gain control of these weapons? I and others believe that these and many other questions should be answered before we authorize pilots to carry guns in the cockpit. Subsequently, that is how we came to craft a pilot program that would answer these questions, and after a 2-year period of testing and evaluation, the decision would be made whether to terminate the program or open it up to all qualified pilots. Then all the pilots who volunteer can be better trained and prepared for any threat that might come their way. What we all agree on in this body is that we should make airplanes safe and secure, and we do not want to put passengers in more danger, or to make weapons accessible to terrorists. This process of testing and evaluation before authorizing all pilots to carry guns in the cockpit will ensure just that. Today, some amendments will be offered with good intentions of making the airplanes safe and secure. However, other than the manager's amendment, which the committee leadership has crafted to improve the measure, I will oppose all amendments that will tilt this carefully balanced compromise that we reached in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In closing, again, I wish to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica), for their work on this measure. I would also like to thank all Members from my side of the aisle on the Subcommittee on Aviation for their contributions to the discussion, debate, and crafting of this measure. Hopefully, as the bill moves along with an open and fair process that includes everyone's input, we will send to the President's desk the best possible measure that will make our skies safer in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I now turn over the management of the time on our side to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I know that the sponsors of this amendment are very sincere and very genuine in what they want to do. I am personally very close to one of them, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), as he and I have participated in a number of endeavors over the course of the years; and I know that his intentions are always for the benefit of all Americans. But in regards to this amendment, I must very strongly oppose it. It would just destroy the delicate balance that we have with this bill. We have come a long way in compromising on this bill, and I think that we finally have a bill that we can truly say represents the will of the American people. Arming pilots with lethal weapons at the present time is opposed by the administration, opposed by the Secretary of Transportation, and opposed by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. So it is questioned whether or not our compromise, bipartisan piece of legislation is ever going to gain the support of those individuals. Certainly, if this amendment would be accepted, the chances of those individuals ever changing their position, the odds of their changing their positions would be much, much greater than they are today when they are not even in favor of it today. Also, the American public is not totally sold on arming pilots. The issue definitely is in doubt. We should go about this slowly and in a very prudent manner. There has been an awful lot thrown at the TSA since we passed our legislation establishing it. They are trying to do the best they possibly can with everything that we have given them to do, but they are moving slowly. It is very possible that some of the deadline dates will have to be extended. If we were now to give them the authority and direct them to start processing approximately tens of thousands of pilots, I honestly and frankly do not know how they could ever do it in a reasonable, responsible manner. Consequently, I say to everyone, stick with the bill that we have before us. It is the most prudent course of action, and we do not want to make the skies less safe and less secure; and I believe this amendment would do that.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to both Hostettler amendment number 7 and number 8, and I also want to say that the gentleman presented his amendments in the correct order. I do not know what happened that we got confused over here, but he was right in the first place on the way he presented the amendments. I happen to believe that he is not correct in presenting these amendments, so I oppose them. I oppose them because of what the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), has had to say about them; what the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), has had to say about them; and what I had to say about one of those two amendments really in dealing with the DeFazio amendment that we had here on the floor earlier. I have said before, and it has been said a number of times on this floor, that this is truly a bipartisan bill. An awful lot of work went into it. A lot of compromise went into it. We spent an awful lot of time on it. I think it would be a tragic mistake to pass any amendment on this House floor today because I seriously believe it would jeopardize the possibility of passing this legislation. Once again I reiterate that the administration is opposed to arming pilots with lethal weapons. The Secretary of Transportation is opposed to it. The Under Secretary for Security of the Transportation Security Administration is opposed to it. So our pilot project bill that is reasonable, rational, and prudent is going to have a very difficult time passing. If we start enlarging this bill, it is going to spell the death of this bill and we will not be able to improve aviation security and safety.

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that we are not discussing the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). We are discussing an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to reluctantly support the Hostettler amendment No. 9. I have said repeatedly I was opposed to all amendments that would be offered to this piece of legislation. But fortunately amendment No. 9 is an amendment which I do not believe breaks the delicate balance that we have achieved in this bipartisan piece of legislation. So I am reluctantly willing to support it. I would like to go on to say, though, that the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), mentioned that if the DeFazio amendment were to pass that he would reluctantly have to be opposed to the bill, and I would want to say that I would have to be also. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and myself and our staff, particularly the staff, have worked enormously hard on putting this bill together. All of us in this body are interested in improving security and safety in our skies. But until we really get into a piece of legislation, we will not understand what ramifications it can have. And that is why it is so important that this bill that we have put together be passed without any amendments that would harm it, because these amendments that have been proposed have very serious ramifications which we who deal with aviation on a day-in and day-out basis and our staff that does it on a day-in, day- out basis realize what these ramifications will be in trying to implement this program if the program is changed. So I ask all my colleagues to support the bill, the manager's amendment that was brought here to the floor, and oppose all the other amendments that are opposed by the ranking member of the full committee, by myself, by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and by the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Chairman, I also remind my colleagues if they really want to do something for aviation safety and security, support this bill in its present context without amendments because, once again, I say the administration is really opposed to arming pilots with lethal weapons. The Secretary of Transportation is and the Under Secretary for Security is also. And if we expand this bill too far, you can rest assured that the administration ultimately will veto this piece of legislation. So to prevent that from happening, please defeat all amendments.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I have fought many, many fights on this floor, and in subcommittee and full committee, and on most occasions, unfortunately, we lost. Today I am sorry to say that he won and I lost. I think that the people who really lost here are the American flying public. We had a bill that the leadership of the committee on both sides agreed to. It was a balanced bill, it was a prudent bill, it was a cautious bill, it was a bill that really would be effective in the long run. The Senate was not even interested in that bill. It was our hope that we could pass this bill here today by overwhelming numbers so that the Senate would be forced to take up that bill. By passing the DeFazio amendment today, it ensures that you are not going to have the Senate take up this bill. If, through some miracle, the Senate does take up the bill, the Secretary of Transportation and the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, has already come out against weapons of this nature being on planes with pilots. The administration has said nothing on this because their Secretary of Transportation has already come out in opposition. If we really want to do something for aviation safety and security, we will now defeat this bill so we can come back with a bill that has a chance of ultimately becoming law. If we want to improve aviation safety and security in this Nation and not make a point for a special interest group along political lines, we will vote against this bill and we will come back with a new one very shortly that has a chance.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time and express my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the outstanding cooperation that we have on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is a pleasure to work with these gentlemen because they always strive to do what is best for the American flying public. Mr. Speaker, I lend my support to H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act. In the true fashion of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this is a bipartisan measure that will expedite the environmental review and approval process for key airport capacity projects. In the last decade, only six of our Nation's largest airports have managed to complete new runway projects, as it currently takes about 10 years or more to simply plan and approve such a project. And as we are about to reach pre-September 11 traffic, and will eventually pass these levels, we need to streamline and speed up the environmental review process in order to lessen the aviation congestion that plagues our Nation and the world. H.R. 4481 will eliminate duplication without cutting corners that might harm the environment. Simply put, once a community reaches consensus on an airport capacity project and the environmental review has been finished, construction can begin in a timely fashion. In closing, I urge Members to support this measure that will help lessen the worsening aviation capacity crunch that we are facing in this Nation.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most respected leaders of America's Polish community, Jan Nowak- Jezioranski. As he prepares to return to Poland, I would like to take this opportunity to bid him farewell and thank him for his decades of service in this country as a remarkable civil servant and defender of freedom and democracy. Both the United States and Europe are greatly indebted to Mr. Nowak- Jezioranski. In World War II, he was an acclaimed ``Courier from Warsaw'' who served as a liaison between the Home Army in the occupied Polish territory and the Polish government in exile in London and representatives of the British government. In addition, he was a key witness that spoke out against the atrocities of the Nazi occupants in Central and Eastern Europe. Near the end of the Cold War, Jan Nowak- Jezioranski was the director of the Polish section of Radio Free Europe. In this capacity, he gave millions of his countrymen the strength and courage to not give up hope behind the Iron Curtain. As a U.S. Citizen, Jan Nowak-Jezioranski bolstered my colleagues and my efforts to contain the Soviet block. Due to his leadership, he was able to help opposition groups in Central and Eastern Europe flourish. Jan Nowak-Jezioranski's vision helped Poland become one of our closest allies in Europe. Following the historic changes, he helped the American public realize the importance of supporting Poland's struggling democracy both economically and politically. Mr. Nowak- Jezioranski recognized the need to abolish the political, social and economic divisions in Europe and therefore, he diligently supported NATO expansion. As a member of the Alliance, Poland has proven a creditable source during the Kosovo campaign and the war on terrorism. Mr. Nowak-Jezioranski has been a long time supporter of the transatlantic community and promoter of democratic values. I believe that our nations will maintain their commitment to strengthening the transatlantic community and encouragement of democratic ideals. It is my hope that from across the Atlantic, Mr. Jan Nowak-Jezioranski will remain active in the public debate on issues that are key to our nations' futures. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing immense gratitude for Mr. Jan Nowak-Jezioranski's numerous contributions to the cause of democracy and freedom,

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Irene Hollinger on her retirement. Mrs. Hollinger is retiring on June 30th after 29 years in the occupational health field. Mrs. Hollinger is retiring from Edwards Medical Supply Inc. where she did important work in Customer Relations and Customer Service. Mrs. Hollinger has been married to her husband, Edward Hollinger, for the past 41 years and the two of them have four children and five grandchildren. Mrs. Hollinger served as a PTA mother for eight years at St. Agnes Church and she also spent three years as a baseball mother for the Marquette Baseball club. Mrs. Hollinger is a beloved employee. Her co-workers and customers will greatly miss Mrs. Hollinger upon her retirement. The commitment, dedication and energy given by Mrs. Hollinger to her family and career are seen by all who know her. It is my pleasure to honor Mrs. Hollinger for her 29 years of service in the occupational health field and extend my heartiest wishes as she begins her well- deserved retirement.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. First of all, I want to say I agree with about 99 percent of this bill, but there is 1 percent of the bill I do not agree with, and that, of course, is the portion of the bill that gives a reimbursement to these airports who built towers, knowing full well that the Federal Government was not going to pay for the construction of these towers. In AIR-21 we passed the law saying that if a local airport, a small local airport, wanted to build a tower, the Federal Government would then pay for the contract air traffic controllers. That was the law. That is still the law today. What we are doing here really is changing the rules of the game after the game has been played. These local small airports signed an agreement with the FAA saying that they would build the local tower with their money, knowing full well they would never get reimbursement for it, if the FAA would pay for the contract air traffic controllers. That is what has happened. These small airports receive about $150,000 a year from the AIP fund. If we grant them reimbursement, they will be spending their AIP money for the next 7 or 8 years on something that they constructed a number of years ago. The worst part of this piece of the legislation is the fact that these same airports have requested $258 million in security improvements because of 9/11. If we do not pass the Oberstar amendment, that means that these airports will not be able to make any security improvements, which they contend they need to the tune of $258 million, until they have been fully reimbursed for their towers that they never had any expectation for being reimbursed for. So, to me, the most reasonable, practical, fair thing to do is pass the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today regarding H.R. 1979, the Small Airport Safety, Security and Air Service Improvement Act of 2002. As noted by the previous speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, I also would like to compliment at this time the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), for the great cooperation that I always receive and the entire Democratic side receives from him and his staff on all aviation matters. As the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) said, this measure allows small airports to use Federal Airport Improvement Program funds to construct and equip privately operated contract towers. Under current law, these grants cannot be used to construct airport control towers not operated by FAA air traffic controllers. I, along with every other Democratic member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, am supportive of the primary provisions of H.R. 1979 to simply authorize the use of Federal funds to support the building of new towers. However, this measure also includes a provision that retroactively reimburses towers that were constructed under an express agreement that the Federal Government would pay the cost of staffing the towers but not the construction costs. I want to run that by everyone once again. Under this agreement, the Federal Government would pay the cost of staffing the towers but not the construction costs. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my colleague and the ranking member of the full committee, is going to offer an amendment that would eliminate the provision for retroactive reimbursement and keep the funds available for new airport projects to enhance safety and security. These 26 towers that have been built since 1996 cost on an average about $1.3 million. Therefore, the retroactive reimbursement provision of H.R. 1979 provides about $30 million in funding for work that has already been completed, despite the fact that these airports have hundreds of millions of dollars of unmet safety and security needs. By using their AIP entitlement money, which is a maximum $150,000 a year, these airports could be drained of entitlement funds for almost a decade, funds that should be used on safety, security and capacity enhancement improvement projects. In addition, these 26 airports have identified and requested from the Federal Aviation Administration a total of $258 million in Federal funding for the future AIP-eligible projects, including AIP-eligible security projects needed in the wake of September 11. If H.R. 1979 is enacted and allowed, retroactive reimbursement funds will not be available for needed safety and security projects. When we offered the amendment to strike the retroactive reimbursement provision in the committee, it was supported by all 34 Democratic members of the committee. If the provision for retroactive reimbursement is stricken by the Oberstar amendment, we will support the bill. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to pass a clean, fair bill, by supporting the Oberstar amendment to strike the unfair retroactive reimbursement position. I am also asking Members to oppose any amendment that would weaken the AIP program, which is intended to pay for infrastructure costs, not operating costs. In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their work on this measure. Hopefully, we can pass a clean bill today with bipartisan support that rewards those airports that play by the rules. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In regards to some of the things that the previous speaker had to say, first of all, we do change the law around here quite often, but we change the law for the future; very, very rarely, if ever, for the past to the best of my knowledge. Here, unfortunately, a portion of this bill is changing the law for the past. The previous speaker also said that we were just being fair to these airports. What about the other airports that would have gone ahead and built these towers if they knew that 5, 6, 7 years down the line, they were going to get reimbursed for those towers? I do not believe that is very fair to them. Getting back to the airports who are going to be reimbursed because of a portion of this bill, remember, they only receive $150,000 a year for AIP funds. If we pass this bill in its present form, they are going to take 7 or 8 years of AIP money paying for this tower. The same group of airports have asked for $258 million for safety and security in the future. It is going to be almost a decade before they get around to getting any money through the AIP program, unless you are planning on increasing the budget in the near future to see to it that they also receive moneys from the AIP fund for other things they are going to do in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).