William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. $14,220,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $47,962,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $4,888,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $155,570,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $47,850,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $63,375,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. The great State of New York would lose $270,720,500.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $18,588,500.

Mr. LIPINSKI. $28,452,500.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have the list. The gentleman wants to know what the losses are going to be. He does not know what you are going to ask.

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I have those figures, and I will give them to him.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 80th anniversary of a profound tragedy. I am referring to the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire. It is not a story that is widely known. There is little mention of it in our history books. It is not taught to our children in school. And it is not commemorated on the kind of scale it deserves. On behalf of the Armenians who live in my community, I take this opportunity to honor the victims of the genocide. The Armenian genocide was the culmination of a long effort by the Ottoman Turks to destroy the Armenian people. During the decades preceding the First World War, the Ottoman government tried repeatedly to achieve this goal. In 1895 300,000 died. In 1909 another 30,000 died before the Western powers intervened to stop the bloodshed. Unfortunately, World War I provided the cover they needed. With Europe and the United States preoccupied by war, the Ottoman attention or interference. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, with a sweep of Armenian leaders. It did not end until 1923 when the entire Armenian population of 2 million had been killed or deported. It is estimated that 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Turks--half of the world's Armenian population at the time. By 1923 the Turks had successfully erased nearly all remnants of the Armenian culture which had existed in their homeland for 3,000 years. As we look back on this tragedy today, we see the memory of the victims insulted by those who say the genocide did not happen. A well- funded propaganda campaign forces the Armenian community to prove and re-prove the facts of the genocide. This is itself a tragedy for a people who would rather devote their energy to commemorating the past and building the future. I stand here today to say the genocide did happen. Nobody can erase the painful memories of the Armenian community. Nobody can deny the photos and historical references. Nobody can deny that few Armenians live where millions lived over 80 years ago. It is our responsibility and our duty to keep the memories of the genocide alive. A world that forgets these tragedies is a world that will see them repeated again and again. The story of this and other genocides must be known by all. We must also honor the victims who perished so brutally. We cannot right the terrible injustice inflicted upon the Armenian community and we can never heal the wounds. But by properly commemorating this tragedy, Armenians will at least know the world has not forgotten the misery of those years. Only then will Armenians begin to receive the justice they deserve.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the President Bill Clinton and Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Norm Mineta and I are today introducing the Amtrak Restructuring Act of 1995 and the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. I have not agreed to introduce these two pieces of legislation at the request of the President because I support or endorse them in their entirety. Rather, I am introducing them in an attempt to bring the administration's views to the table on these important and controversial issues. Mr. Speaker, these are but two of the bills that will be introduced this Congress on the restructuring of Amtrak and the sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I may even introduce other legislation on these issues myself. These two bills are merely the Administration's contribution to the debate. When we return from the April District Work Period, the Subcommittee on Railroads will be marking up legislation on Amtrak and the ICC. As the Ranking Democratic Member on the Subcommittee, it is my responsibility to evaluate every alternative--Democratic, Republican, bipartisan, or Administration--and provide the opportunity for the other members of the subcommittee to do the same. That's why I've agreed to introduce these bills today.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Rosemary Kaptur, an outstanding leader and resident of the Third Congressional District. After 17 years of dedicated public service, Rosemary Kaptur is resigning as mayor of Palos Park, Illinois. Ms. Kaptur began her political career in 1975 when she became the first woman to be elected Commissioner to the Village Council. Prior to entering the political arena, Ms. Kaptur, who earned a degree in journalism and public relations, worked as an advertising manager. She was also very involved with community organizations and served as the public relations liaison for the Palos Park Library Board. In 1978, Ms. Kaptur was appointed as the first woman mayor of Palos Park. Since then, she has been elected by her constituents for three consecutive terms as Mayor of the Village. During her tenure as mayor, Ms. Kaptur has accomplished a tremendous amount on behalf of the residents of Palos Park. A strong advocate for the arts, Ms. Kaptur instituted the Fine Arts Committee, allowed the continued use of the Village Hall by the Palos Village Players, and hosted the Concert in the Park and the Taste of Palos. Her beautification efforts and the development of a Tree Body Committee have earned Palos Park Tree City USA Awards for 1994 and 1995. In addition, the Village parking lot was recently paved and the Heritage Court, a historic brick patio, was constructed. Mayor Kaptur also utilized her political and public relations skills to secure various state and federal grants for Palos Park. For example, Palos Park received a $2.5 million Build Illinois grant to defray the cost of installation of a new sanitary sewer, a $1.5 million Metropolitan Water Resources Development grant for sanitary sewer lift station and force main, and a $450,000 Department of Conservation grant to rehabilitate the Village Hall. Mayor Kaptur has introduced 911 emergency services, a cable television franchise, and a cost-saving trash removal franchise to Palos Park while expanding the boundaries of the village through annexation of several properties. After 17 years of public service, Mayor Kaptur has decided to retire in order to spend more time with her husband Joseph, her three grown sons, and her seven beautiful grandchildren. Mayor Kaptur has been a loving and strong influence on the Village for many years. I ask my colleagues to join the residents of Palos Park and myself in expressing our gratitude to Mayor Kaptur for her years of devotion to public service. I wish Mayor Kaptur good health in her retirement and, again, I thank her for her devotion to the residents of Palos Park.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to stand up and support this amendment. I believe this amendment is a silk purse amendment and not a sow's ear amendment. As you all know now, fugitives have been receiving welfare benefits. I found it hard to believe at first, but upon further investigation, I discovered that the Federal and State laws prohibited some welfare agencies from disclosing the addresses of recipients to law enforcement departments under the guise of confidentiality. Does America really want to protect the confidentiality of a fugitive? Do the American people want to support these people with their tax dollars? I doubt it very seriously. The amendment that we offer today not only ensures the exchange of information between police and welfare agencies but makes fugitives ineligible for benefits in the first place. Currently there is no provision in the welfare bill to prohibit States from passing confidentiality laws. Section 403(f) of H.R. 1214 says that the Federal Government may not regulate the conduct of States except to the extent expressly provided. We need to provide that, so no State shall hinder police in their search for fugitives. It is estimated that one-third of those running from the law are receiving welfare benefits. Yet, in some States it is impossible or next to impossible to track them down by going to the agency and asking for an address. Lieutenant Griffin of the Chicago Police Department told me that it is a tremendous benefit to be able to access public aid lists. It is the only spot they really go to, he said. The Federal Government has been just as guilty as the States in protecting the rights of criminals. Between the two, we have created a bureaucratic nightmare. For example, the Food Stamp Act expressly prohibits the release of information of recipients. And the States build on this nonsense by either denying access of data or making the process of receiving data too prohibitive. Another situation that I discovered is the inconsistency with which information is available. For example, in Illinois, police can access AFDC lists but not so food stamp lists. Depending on what kind of assistance someone receives depends on whether police can track them down. Does this make any sense? I do not think so. Access of information should be consistent regardless of the type of assistance someone is receiving. Let's set a Federal standard. You break the law, you do not receive benefits, and the police can use these public aid lists if need be. What will happen if this amendment does not pass? Fugitives will continue to receive welfare benefits and the police will not be able to track them down. Let's pass a little common sense. Let's pass the Blute-Lipinski-Johnson amendment today.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, passage of the Durbin, Lipinski, Gilman, Knollenberg amendment will encourage stability in Central Europe. As written, H.R. 7 mentions only the visegrad nations. We need to make it clear that other European countries emerging from communist domination should receive assistance and be welcomed into NATO when they meet appropriate standards. Expressing an interest in having these countries join NATO one day will create stability and provide for the growth of democracy and economic prosperity. We will be encouraging these countries to expedite the promotion of democratic principles within their respective governments. It follows that a less volitle political environment will provide fertile ground for foreign investors. With the end of the cold war, the United States is the largest single investor in this part of the world. Our investment creates employment and encourages stability and the strengthening of democracy. By assisting our friends in Central Europe, we will bring continued stability and prosperity in Western Europe, and thus secure United States interests in all of Europe.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues an outstanding young individual from the Third Congressional District of Illinois who has completed a major goal in his scouting career. Douglas Pratt of Chicago, IL, has completed the requirements required to attain the rank of Eagle Scout. Douglas will be honored at an Eagle Scout Court on February 26, 1995. The eagle rank is one of the highest and most prestigious ranks a Boy Scout can earn. It is important to note that less than 2 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. Douglas worked long and hard to learn and perform all the skills necessary to achieve this rank. Douglas has been active in Scouting for several years at St. Mary Star of the Sea. In addition to being an outstanding member of Boy Scout Troop 1441, Douglas served as a den chief for the younger Cub Scout troops for 2 years. Because of his patience and skill with the younger boys, Douglas proved to be a natural leader and an excellent role model. Douglas has also excelled in activities outside of Scouting. He is currently a sophomore at the Illinois Math and Science Academy. He is a writer on the school paper and editor for the satire paper. In the spring, he plans to join the basketball team. At the Ted Lenard Gifted Center, he graduated with honors and an impressive list of achievements. For example, in eighth grade, he was a member of the Academic Olympics team and also won the City Competition Science Fair. For his Eagle Scout project, Douglas did an excellent job cleaning and repairing the area around Bachelor's Grove cemetery. In fact, Douglas in such an ambitious and talented Scout that has earned enough merit badges to attain the honor of Eagle Palm, a honor even more prestigious than the Eagle Scout. Douglas is an outstanding young man who deserves to be commended for his leadership, hard work, and service. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Douglas on his achievement as Eagle Scout. Let us also wish him the very best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Orton amendment to H.R. 2. Although I support efforts to cut excessive Federal spending, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah could have a devastating effect on our Nation's transportation system. The Federal Government supports investment in our Nation's infrastructure because it is a critical need beyond the scope of any individual State. The aviation and highway trust funds are designed to ensure that transportation needs are consistently met throughout the country. The trust funds are simply the wrong target for this effort. Mr. Chairman, highway and aviation programs are already covered by spending controls. Each year, the Appropriations Committee sets obligation limitations on transportation contract authority. These limitations in turn control outlays from the programs. Contract authority, like any funding appropriated by Congress, is simply a piece of the pie--not a lifetime supply of pie. In addition, rescissions of highway and aviation contract authority will not actually save any money. Because of the importance of transportation funding, the law clearly establishes that funds from the transportation trust funds cannot be used for any other purpose--even deficit reduction. The transportation trust funds are the wrong target for deficit reduction. By law, they cannot spend more than they take in. Rather than trying to slash them, we should be looking to the aviation and highway trust funds as a model for other programs. Every Federal program should pay for itself as these trust funds do and not contribute to the deficit. Under this amendment, all the aviation and highway grant programs could be in jeopardy of rescission by the President. Nearly all high- way and aviation funds are statutorily provided in multibillion dollar blocks of formula distributed funds. The President might only have the option of eliminating an entire program in order to reach a particular project. Surely we do not wish to advocate that. That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. The bottom line is that this amendment is a really bad idea. Its impact would be devastating for transportation programs--as well as any nontransportation programs which use contract authority. We can cut spending and given the President a line-item veto today, but we cannot pass this amendment. Although it may be well-intentioned, the impact on the Nation's transportation system is intolerable. Vote ``no'' on the Orton amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, today the Clinton administration abandoned its effort to pass a $40 billion loan guarantee to Mexico. The President came to the conclusion that his bailout proposal would have failed in Congress, and he was right. So what does the administration turn around and do? Instead of really responding to the opposition of Congress, the administration decides to devise a new plan, a new plan which effectively circumvents the will of the Congress. While this new plan includes more international financial support, it also calls for dipping into our country's exchange equalization fund for as much as $20 billion to prop up the peso. This fund, which only holds $25 billion, I might add, is usually only used to help stabilize the U.S. dollar. Mr. Speaker, this marks the fist time that the fund has ever been used to support any kind of currency other than the U.S. dollar. Mr. Speaker, I must take exception. I must take exception to how this administration wants to put the Mexican peso before the American people. I must take exception to how this administration chooses to sidestep the authority of Congress in this matter. Even with International Monetary Fund support, U.S. tax dollars are still at risk. By avoiding the authority of the U.S. Congress the administration does not have to answer to the elected Representatives of the American people on this rescue plan for Mexico. How did we come to where we are today? Well Mr. Speaker, it all began with something called NAFTA. Over a year ago, the media hailed it as the right thing to do. Meanwhile, the Clinton administration cut deals with various Members in exchange for their vote in favor of the agreement. I and others, however, stood our ground and said ``no'' to NAFTA. We did so knowing full well the devastating effects such an agreement would have on the U.S. work force and our country's trade position. Unfortunately, our warnings went unheeded, and today the administration wants to bail out Mexico. The Clinton administration promised that 100,000 new jobs would be created in the first year of NAFTA. These jobs we have yet to see. Let us take a look at the statistics. Since NAFTA was enacted, United States net imports with Mexico fell more than half. Our trade deficit in electronics has doubled, and we have a $12 billion trade deficit in automobiles and parts. In fact, the overall automotive trade deficit with Mexico has only worsened under NAFTA. The Department of Commerce estimated that $1 billion in exports supports approximately 20,000 jobs. This means our automotive trade deficit alone has cost our country 32,000 jobs. So how are U.S. workers expected to deal with this? NAFTA's trade adjustment assistance program certainly is not helping, because eligibility requirements are extremely strict and the actual benefits are limited. Many firms have actually consulted their employees and told them not to bother applying. Labor and environmental side agreements negotiated under NAFTA have proven to be abused. Now after a year of NAFTA, Mexico has experienced a financial crisis, and Americans, thousands of whom lost their jobs to Mexico, are being asked to foot the bill. Americans are being forced to prop up the peso through a U.S. dollar. To me, this is incredible. Many questions have yet to be answered about the nature of the peso crisis. Reports that the administration knew long beforehand about the situation of the peso also cause the urgency of the situation to come into serious question. During debate on NAFTA, opponents pointed out that Mexico was highly overvaluing the peso and that provisions must be included in the agreement to stabilize the currency relationship. No such provisions were included in the agreement, and look where were are today. We just passed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and we are being asked to swallow this bailout, and we must ask, will U.S. and international loans really help anyone? In the Washington Post, Jim Glassman argues that the bailout may only make Mexico's long-term economic problems worse. By being too lenient on the Mexican Government, we are encouraging misbehavior in the future. Mr. Speaker, the teamsters and united electrical workers unions filed unfair labor complaints against Honeywell and GE companies in Mexico-- the National Administrative Office dismissed these cases with no penalties for the companies--a blatant disregard for workers' rights. Likewise, the environment and public health have suffered a great deal. Are NAFTA supporters aware that a GM plant near the border in Mexico bumped a toxic chemical at 215,000 times the acceptable level? It is no wonder that children's cancer rates have increased dramatically be 230 percent in Brownsville TX--230 percent! In July 1994, a 13-year-old boy from Texas died from a brain infection after swimming in the Rio Grande. American health officials traced the infection back to the 24 million gallons of raw sewage from Mexico which is pumped into the river each day. Mr. Speaker, NAFTA is literally poisoning our children and grandchildren. William Seidman, former Chairman of the FDIC, who was in favor of NAFTA, opposed the administration's original loan guarantee package. Mr. Seidman said that it bore striking similarities to the S&L bailout of the 80's--and he should know. Mr. Speaker, under this new administration plan, taxpayers' dollars are still on the line. Mr. Speaker, at best, efforts to prop up the peso are simply a political rescue for the new Mexican Government and a bailout for Wall Street. The Mexican and American middle class will see little direct benefit. At the very least, the peso crisis gives us reason to step back and take a good long look at what's wrong with NAFTA. In Mexico where the disparity between rich and poor is so great, we need to slow down, reevaluate the integrity of our trading partner and ask ourselves--who really is going to benefit from the loan guarantee. We must recognize that the peso instability is not a quick fix situation--the loan package will not alter the underlying structural weaknesses of the Mexican economy. A year or so from now, Mexico may be back wanting more financial aid. When will it end? We just passed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and we're being asked to swallow this bailout? And, we must ask, will U.S. and international loan efforts really help anyone? In the Washington Post, Jim Glassman argues that the bailout may only make Mexico's long-term economic problems worse. By being too lenient on the Mexican Government, we are encouraging misbehavior in the future. Why not just let the Mexican market fix itself? This admittedly may cause investors to lose money, but they assumed this risk, they deserve little sympathy from American taxpayers. A major issue in last November's election was the fear, the concern, and the insecurity that the American middle class has about their shrinking standard of living. Now, with NAFTA and this billion dollar bailout, we are not only shipping out middle class jobs, but putting an additional burden on the middle class to subsidize another country. Since 1979, the United States has lost 16 percent of its manufacturing job base--that is 3.2 million jobs lost. The United States has lost these jobs to Mexico. Not to Mexican companies, but to over 1,600 American-owned plants, plants that employ low paid Mexican workers. I have already heard from a large number of my constituents urging me to reject the peso bailout. These are the same people who knew that NAFTA was not good for this Country. These are also the same people who go to work everyday, live within their means, and are responsible for their own finances. Mexico and Wall Street could learn a lot from my constituents. I have cosponsored legislation to repeal NAFTA and legislation which says that no loan guarantee shall be provided which could result in any direct or indirect financial obligations on the part of the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to do the same. The American people deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, how can we in good conscience rush to bailout Mexico when we have thousands of people here at home who desperately need our help--many of whom lost their jobs to Mexico? I am very disappointed that Congress has been denied this say on this issue. Mr. Speaker, instead of rescuing Mexico and Wall Street, we need to be helping our own citizens achieve a better way of life.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the facts surrounding solid waste incineration. While the reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) may not be on the top of the agenda for this Congress, I believe the importance of the issue warrants some immediate discussion. I have long been a vocal opponent of solid waste incinerators in my community. While incinerators may make some small dent in our garbage problem, they also create severe environmental and health concerns we cannot afford to ignore. During combustion, an incinerator emits significant quantities of heavy metals like mercury, cadmium and lead, and complex organic compounds, including dioxins. Equally important, incineration transforms many toxic substances in solid waste into highly volatile compounds more easily absorbed into the food chain or inhaled or ingested by humans. Lead can cause mental retardation, learning disabilities and kidney damage. It is especially toxic to children and pregnant women. Cadmium has been linked to lung cancer and kidney disorders. High levels of dioxins can result in altered liver function. These toxins are not rare--they are common emissions of solid waste incinerators. Burning garbage is a dangerous and costly proposal. Research has shown that air pollution by tiny particles, even within current legal limits, can raise the risk of early death from heart or lung disease. As a result, I have urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to review and update the Federal health based standard for particulate air pollution. This is an issue of great concern for me and my constituents since we must already cope with a number of polluting industries in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs. Fortunately, the USEPA has initiated the process of revising air quality criteria for particle pollution. I welcome this action. Last year, the USEPA released its report on the dangers of dioxins. Dioxins, one of the most toxic manmade chemicals, are chlorinated hydrocarbons that are byproducts of a number of combustion processes, including solid waste incineration. In its report, the USEPA concluded that dioxins are probable cancer causing agents. Dioxins have also been associated with weakened immune systems, birth defects and damage to the reproductive system. Dioxins are extremely pervasive in the environment. Much of dioxin comes from incinerators that emit the chemicals through the air, which is deposited on grass and trees. The chemical is then consumed by cows and other animals. Dioxin is also deposited in lakes and streams and ingested by fish. The highest concentrations of dioxins are found in plants and animals, thus contaminating the food supply. the USEPA last year announced tougher new air standards for municipal solid waste incinerators. These regulations are designed to cut harmful emissions from incinerators by requiring the installation of more pollution control equipment. While I am encouraged by these new requirements, I remain opposed to the construction of any new solid waste incinerators. The costs of complying with new standards, along with the health risks of the incineration process, are simply not worth it. At this time, I wish to insert into the Record comments made by one of my constituents, Michael Turlek of the Lyons Incineration Opponent Network (LION) in Illinois. These comments were submitted in response to the USEPA's proposed rules on incinerator emissions and the reassessment of dioxin. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend Mr. Turlek for his commitment to the environment. Mr. Turlek has been a leading force in fighting solid waste incinerator projects proposed for my congressional district. I thank Mr. Turlek for his tireless efforts on behalf of public health. Lyons Incinerator Opponent Network (Lion) (by Michael W. Turlek) The disclosures of the Federal EPA Health Assessment Document for dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds call for re- assessment of corrective measures for primary sources of major dioxin emissions. We are dealing with extremely poisonous, stable compounds with environmental persistence measured in decades. Compounds that can be passed from the expectant mother's system to the growing fetus, then, post-natally, through the mother's milk to the infant who is then subject to a lifetime of additional exposure and health hazards. Following absorption, a half- life for 2-3-7-8-TCDF elimination was estimated from 5.8 years to 11.3 years. The current report reveals the average human intake exposure rate to be more than 500-fold HIGHER than the 1985 EPA report data. Upper-bound risk estimates for general population dioxin exposure could be as high as one in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000. This is frightening data and the FEPA must look closely towards recommendations for the cure rather than the band-aid. We, as responsible adults cannot accept the associated health risks for the current or future generations. reproductive and developmental effects Hormonal changes, reproductive dysfunction, under-developed organs and impaired organ function. Developmental toxicity found in fish, birds and mammals is likely to occur in humans. immune toxicity Alterations in specific immune defector functions and increased susceptibility to infectious disease. cancer TCDD has been clearly shown to increase malignant tumor incidence in laboratory animals. The peer panel that met in September of 1993 found that results from human studies were largely consistent with observations from laboratory studies of dioxin-induced cancer and therefore should not be dismissed or ignored. Major, qualitative, environmental release sources have been identified as: Medical Waste Incinerators, Municipal Waste Incinerators, Cement Kilns, and Industrial wood burning. Dioxin, being a by-product of incineration merely transfers the dioxin to land-fills via the bottom-ash if emission standards are reduced to keep dioxins out of the atmosphere. The problem continues. It behooves the EPA to recommend a ban on medical municipal, wood-burning and other dioxin producing incinerators. Tightening standards is not enough. Chemical manufacturing process recommendations should call for a phasing out of chlorinated compounds with immediate use of alternate non-dioxin compounds, where available. Perhaps it's time that we should be talking about BEST KNOWN technologies rather than BEST AVAILABLE. Laser burn technology might prove substantially more efficient. Part of the study states that you cannot point to the number of the populace affected negatively nor can you point to the individuals; but the facts and data are there. You never will be able to point to these people. They will continue as needless, obscure casualties, unless you do something about it. addendum The persistent and hazardous nature of dioxin causes us to question the control effectiveness of Waste Incineration Dioxin Standards. Michael Cooper, Mgr, Environmental Compliance, Foster/ Wheeler waste incinerator builder/operator, while describing ``carbon injection'' as a dioxin emission control system stated the following: Trapped dioxin particles are released when introduced to fire of lower temperature than the original combustion. In answer to a question from the Chair, he stated that the dioxin particles do not end up in the fly-ash. Our comment: Most incinerator operations have identified dioxin in both fly-ash and bottom ash. In answer to another question from the Chair, Cooper stated that the temperature was not high enough to destroy the dioxin. Our comment: Carbon injection is not a proven technology for removal and destruction of dioxin.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. I wanted to say that I have nothing against people in this economy becoming millionaires, becoming billionaires. But I believe that it is really the duty and the responsibility of the executive branch of government and the legislative branch of government to try to create an economy that improves the standing of living of all the citizens of this country. That should be our No. 1 priority, to improve the standard of living of everyone here. We should see to it that there are some kind of checks and balances so that one segment of our society does not benefit more than another segment of our society, particularly when it seems to me that the laws we often pass and the trade treaties we often pass here benefit a much smaller segment of our society at the expense of one of the largest sections of our society, the middle class. I really believe that that should be the top priority, creating jobs in this country, as I say, not only for the middle class, but for everyone. If you can become a millionaire, wonderful. If you can become a billionaire, that is wonderful also. But we have to give the opportunity to people to continually improve their standards of living, continually improve their jobs, so that they can raise their family, educate their family, so they [[Page H389]] can buy homes, so they can buy automobiles. This is really what the American dream is about. Not a few people becoming billionaires or millionaires.