William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.J. Res. 103 and deny the extension of Normal Trade Relations with China. I believe that we are all shaped by our life experiences. We are all influenced by the lessons from our youth. For me, post-World War II Chicago was a unique place and time to grow up. At home, in school, in church, and in the ballfields, we learned the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, friends and enemies. Our parents taught us the value of hard work and discipline. When we played 16-inch softball, we knew the rules, and we played by them. It was wrong to cheat, and cheaters were punished. In school, we learned about our nation's history. In the schoolyards, we learned who were our friends and who weren't. In church, we learned about God, morality, and right and wrong. When I grew up, we learned to love and honor this nation and all that it stands for. I value those simple lessons from my youth that remain with me to this day, which is why I opposed NTR for China. The Communist leaders in Beijing do not play by our rules. They do not act as friends. They do not act in the interest of peace and prosperity for all. Instead, they point missiles at the democratic island of Taiwan and U.S. military bases on Japan, break trade agreements with the U.S., sell nuclear and other dangerous weapon technologies to the highest bidder, practice forced abortions, throw democratic activists into jail, ignore human rights, and set up concentration camps. We do not trade with other totalitarian regimes. Do we have NTR with North Korea? Do we have NTR with Serbia? Do we have NTR with Cuba? No, no, and no. Then why should China get it? That is the question I pose to my colleagues today. Think about the lessons from our youth. Think about the logic of trading with China. Think about what it means for this nation and our ideals. Mr. Speaker, I am not someone who seeks out confrontation and conflict with anyone. I do not believe that the U.S. should carelessly start needless fights in this world. But we must protect our interests. We must protect our ideals. We must protect our principles. I can see a day in the future where we can freely and fairly trade with a friendly and democratic China. I can see a day in the future where China acts as our friend in promoting peace and prosperity. I want to see such a day happen, but until the day that China becomes a democracy that is for the people and by the people, until China stops pointing missiles at the U.S. and Taiwan, until China honors its trade agreements, until China starts to respect basic human rights, I will continue to fight against giving a blank NTR check to China. Vote for this resolution and against NTR for China.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the participants of my 2000 All-American Eagles program. When I was a Recreation Supervisor with the Chicago Park District in the late 1960's, I started the All- American Eagles competition. In 1983, 1 was elected to represent the people of the (current) Third Congressional District of Illinois, and brought the program to Southwest Chicago and its near suburbs. After thirty-one successful years, this program is still the cornerstone of my efforts to recognize and honor many of our district's exemplary seventh and eighth grade students. This year's theme was World War I, and consisted of three components--an essay and public speaking contest, an artwork competition, and a history quiz. Students who participated in the essay contest submitted an essay from 250-500 words long about the most important person or event in World War I. The top 20 essayists were asked to present their work orally to a panel of judges consisting of local teachers and elected officials. The top three finishers for each event were given a plaque and/or a savings bond, and accumulated points for the overall competition. The overall winner received a $500 savings bond. The school that sent the most participants received a $250 savings bond. It now gives me great pleasure to announce to my colleagues the winners of the 2000 All American Eagles competition. For the essay- speech contest, Imelda Vionontes from Kinzie delivered an excellent essay about the economic and social devastation during World War I, earning her a third place finish. Samuel Lin from Southwest Chicago Christian School earned a second place prize for his remarks about the Treaty of Versailles. Nicole Svajlenka from St. Alexander School delivered an outstanding essay about the pilots of the Lafayette Escadrille, earning a $100 savings bond and first place. I was truly impressed with the artwork submitted for the competition this year. I have no doubt that today's youth will make great contributions to the tomorrow's culture. Winning the third place prize was Ashley Wrobel from St. George School. Joseph Waterlander and Samuel Lin from Southwest Chicago Christian School took second and first place respectively. For the history quiz, I am reminded by the aphorism that states, ``Anybody can make history--only a great man can write it.'' The following are the potentially ``great'' future historians that aced the history quiz. Demonstrating a clear interest in world history was Paul Wieckiewicz from Our Lady of the Mount School, earning a third place finish. In second place was Adam Jures from Lincoln Middle School. Finally, Samuel Lin from Southwest Chicago Christian School won his second competition and demonstrated a profound interest in the social sciences. Furthermore, Samuel Lin made important strides towards the funding of his college education, winning the 2000 All American Eagle Award. I congratulate Samuel for his hard work and deep commitment to his continuing education. Today, I charge Samuel to use his ambition and academic talent in service to this great nation, as he is a credit to his family and community. Again, I would like to thank all the participants in this year's competition, as well as St. George School for providing the most participants. Judging these contests can often be a difficult task. However, I had the pleasure of hearing great essays and seeing the talent of a new generation of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge these young Americans to pursue their interests to the fullest extent of their abilities and to the betterment of this nation.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Once again, under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member, we have before us a relatively well-balanced and bipartisan bill despite the restrictive allocations. I want to thank both of them for all of their hard work and time they have invested in this bill. I understand that they have not had an easy job, but they were able to do very well with what little they had. I also want to congratulate Chairman Packard for his years of public service and his leadership at the helm of the subcommittee during this Congress. These budgetary constraints, as my colleague from Indiana has pointed out before, does not keep pace with the growing water infrastructure needs of this nation. The Army Corps of Engineers has tremendous responsibilities across this nation, and this funding bill shortchanges a number of Corps water projects when money is needed the most. In my district, the Corps has a number of ongoing flood control projects. Unfortunately, this bill does not fully fund these important priorities. Ongoing flood control projects at Stoney Creek and Natalie Creek could provide meaningful and substantive protection from flooding to thousands of my constituents and save the communities from millions of dollars of potential damages. I believe that it is critical to ensure that these flood control projects proceed without unnecessary delays, and I will continue to work with the Corps of Engineers to make sure this happens. I hope that as this bill goes to conference, we can all work toward a final bill that will more accurately reflect the funding needs for our nation's water infrastructure and fully fund the important Corps water projects in my district. Again, I want to salute the chairman and ranking member for their dedication and hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to working with them when this bill goes to conference.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the 21st century, we see that the American dream is still alive. America is still a place where an honest day's work can get one an honest day's pay. But we see that it is beginning to be challenged. It is being challenge because America is giving up its sovereignty to foreign bureaucrats, because we are losing control over our own laws. It is being challenged because America is giving up its democratic principles to a secret multinational trade organization that does its work behind closed doors. It is being challenged by workers in other nations who cannot enjoy the same freedoms and benefits American workers receive. Foreign workers who work for pennies a day, foreign workers who work in dangerous and hazardous conditions, foreign workers who work without health benefits, foreign workers who are forced to live in dirty environments, breath dirty air and drink dirty water, foreign workers who cannot organize and speak out for fair wages and fair benefits. Foreign workers who, because of such conditions and through no fault of their own, turn out cheap products and dump them in the United States of America. It is unfair for American workers to compete with foreign workers on an unfair playing field. It is also unfair for foreign workers to have to work every day in such miserable conditions. In this world, in this type of global economy, where labor and environmental safeguards are not in place, where the majority of the World Trade Organization members continue to stall and delay and fight against real reform, all workers will continue to suffer while corporate profits skyrocket. Remember that the American dream is just not for Americans; it is also something that is sought by many people around this world. It is a hope for a better life for workers and their families. Unfortunately, for many in this world, it will be a hope that will never become a reality. A number of my colleagues here in this body have urged the WTO to establish real reform and put labor and environmental safeguards into place. So far, that has fallen upon deaf ears. That is why I plan to vote for H.J. Res. 90. In its current form, the WTO only ensures economic prosperity for the elite multinationals and leaves millions and millions of workers behind. We need to send a signal to the WTO that if they do not get serious about reform, we will push even harder. We have only begun the fight. Mr. Speaker, I believe we need real reform of WTO. We need real reform that will bring the American dream to everyone, so workers around the world can have a real hope of achieving happiness.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding member of my staff and citizen of the Southwest Chicagoland community. This year, Jean Strauss was selected as Woman of the Year by St. Jane de Chantal Parish Ladies Guild in Garfield Ridge. On June 10th, 2000, Jean was honored at the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women (CCW) Vicariate V Women of the Year Luncheon, held at the Lexington House in Hickory Hills, Illinois. It gives me great pleasure to inform my colleagues of the great work that Jean performed to deserve this honor. I think that all will agree that she represents the volunteer spirit that has not only helped to make Southwest Chicagoland an exceptional place to live, but our entire nation as well. Jean Strauss has served St. Jane de Chantal Parish for several years. Besides regularly attending mass, she has held numerous offices and served on various committees. Those who know Jean best say that she volunteers for ``almost everything.'' Specific examples of her philanthropy include volunteering for the American Cancer Society and Kiwanis. As I mentioned previously, Jean is a valued member of my staff. For four years, she has worked at the 23rd Ward Office in Chicago for Alderman Mike Zalewski, Illinois State Senator Bob Molaro, and myself. In this capacity, she performs numerous important tasks for the 23rd Ward. For example, as a fluent speaker of Polish, Jean helps those in the 23rd Ward who are learning the English language. In addition, she greatly assists disabled senior citizens by picking up and returning their paid utility bills. Thanks to Jean, her co-workers in the 23rd Ward office are almost always likely to have snacks at their disposal and their desks decorated for the holidays. Perhaps most importantly, Jean Strauss is a devoted wife to her husband Jack. Together, they are the proud parents of Jake and John Strauss. Just recently, she celebrated the birth of her first grandchild--Eric Dawson Strauss. When Jean is not volunteering, one is likely to find her at a local dining establishment, or perhaps pushing her luck at a ``gaming'' enterprise. Again, I am pleased to congratulate Jean Strauss before my colleagues today. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that Jean will enjoy many more years of service to the Southwest Chicagoland community, and I thank her for many contributions.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two longtime educators who are retiring from the Chicago Public School system (CPS) this year. After several years of tremendous service, Mary Ann Bartusch and Roseann Palladino will be leaving Byrne Elementary School in Southwest Chicago. These teachers are perfect examples of the continuously hardworking, but often-unrecognized efforts of teachers in the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois. It gives me great pride to share with you their stories and accomplishments. Mary Ann Bartusch graduated from Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, majoring in Speech Language Pathology. For 34 years, Mary Ann served the Chicago Public Schools as a speech language pathologist. She began her career at Baum Elementary School (now Tonti Elementary School). In addition to John F. Kennedy High School, she then served at John C. Dore, Blair, Kinzie, Francis McKay, Mark Twain, Sawyer, and Michael M. Byrne Elementary Schools. For over three decades, Mary Ann gained the trust and love of her often disadvantaged students who found communication with her remarkably easy. Mary Ann's avocations included volunteering for local Brownies and Girl Scouts organizations. Her daughters were active in 4H and received several awards, gaining their mother's pride. In Mary Ann's well- deserved leisure time, she pursues gardening and air-travel. Roseann Palladino spent over 35 years in Chicago as a distinguished science teacher. In 1964, she graduated from Chicago Teacher's College with a Bachelors of Education (B.E.) degree. Eleven years later, she received a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree from the Illinois Institute of Technology's (IIT) Design program. Her service to Chicago's youth began at Gershwin Elementary School, where she served for 8\1/2\ years. After 15 years at Morrill, she spent the last 12 years at Byrne Elementary. Over the years, Roseann participated in several school trips, and appropriately received numerous awards and recognition. Commenting on her retirement, Roseann humbly stated: ``My thanks for all my years of service in Chicago is the love and success I see in all the children I have taught.'' Again, I was pleased to learn of the retirement and wonderfully productive lives of Mary Ann Bartusch and Roseann Palladino. In a time when these educators are receiving numerous recognition and praise, I gladly echo my own thanks from the halls of the U.S. Congress. These two educators represent the day-to-day hard work and compassion that steer Chicago's youth toward successful futures. Mr. Speaker, I wish Mary Ann Bartusch and Roseann Palladino a well-deserved long and happy retirement.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, since the Republic of China moved its seat of government to Taiwan in 1949, it has overcome many difficulties and achieved many successes. Where Taiwan was once a war-torn island with a per capita annual income of less than $300, today that figure has surpassed $13,000. Taiwan is now an economic powerhouse and one of the largest markets for U.S. products in the world. Already, Taiwan holds the third largest foreign exchange reserves in the world, and this year, its economy is expected to grow by another 6.7 percent. Taiwan's successes have not been limited strictly to the realm of economics. Over the last few decades, Taiwan has consolidated its status as one of Asia's most vibrant and viable democracies. Following the lifting of bans on the creation of new political parties and the growth of the free media in the 1980s, Taiwan has gradually expanded the scope of its electoral politics by holding direct elections for the President and the Parliament. This year, on March 18, the people of Taiwan once again exercised their democratic rights and elected a new administration that will take office on May 20. This unprecedented development will mark the first peaceful exchange of ruling power from one political party to another in the history of Chinese civilization and will enhance Taiwan's role as a model of democracy for the people of mainland China. It is my hope that as the powerful influence of Taiwan's democracy grows, so too will the momentum for the peaceful resolution of issues between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. At this time of great hope and opportunity, Taiwan's principal representative to the U.S. and the head of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, D.C., Representative Stephen S.F. Chen, has announced his retirement after 40 years of service in Taiwan's corps. It is because of his efforts that Taiwan has maintained its prestige and standing in the international community. His steady hand has helped steer Taiwan through the good times and the bad, and it is clear that the international community has been enriched by his work. Representative Chen's professionalism and diplomatic skills are second to none, and I wish to thank him for his tireless efforts to further strengthen the close and friendly ties between Taiwan and the U.S. Mr. Speaker, I wish to salute the 23 million people who live in the prosperous democracy on Taiwan. I also salute Representative Chen for his patriotism, dedication, and friendship. On the occasion of his retirement, I invite my colleagues to join me in extending our best wishes and sincere appreciation for all that Stephen Chen has done, and most importantly, for all that he will continue to do as he moves on to write the next brilliant chapter of his life's work.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to a dedicated educator who has spent the last 44 years serving the Chicago Public School (CPS) system and the Southwest side of Chicago. This year, Norbert L. Kane, an Assistant Principal at Hubbard High School, will be retiring after 35 years of hard work for local students. Norbert Kane represents all that Chicago citizens can ask for in an educator. He is a devoted family man, married to Delores Kane and a father of six children. Professionally, Norbert excelled in the program of management for Hubbard High School--Region 5. With his many organizational talents, Norbert earned the respect of his many colleagues and students. In addition, Norbert has been honored for his many self-less contributions to the 3rd Congressional District and Southwest Chicago. For several years, Mr. Kane administered the Combined Charities Campaign, as well as numerous blood drives. He has also served as American Legion District Commander--1st Division, while being constantly committed to the beautification of Hubbard High School. Mr. Speaker, Hubbard High School is regrettably going to lose an outstanding Assistant Principal and public servant. It gives me great pleasure to share Mr. Kane's accomplishments with my colleagues today. Again, I thank Norbert L. Kane for his many years of service, and I wish him equal success in his retirement.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should not reward a totalitarian regime that is run by a Communist party, a dictatorship, with little regard for human dignity and common decency. We should not reward a nation that has, through its actions and deeds, done so much evil. Mr. Speaker, we are free Americans, nurtured on the Declaration of Independence. We are the land of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson, Americans who believe in justice and the dignity of man. So let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate profits. Let me run that by my colleagues once again. Let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate profits. Let us not forget the democratic ideals that formed the foundation of this Nation. I urge my colleagues to remember the lessons from our idealistic youth of right and wrong and do what is right and vote ``no'' on PNTR from China. Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the world lies an ancient nation with over 1.2 billion people living on a land mass covering 3.7 million miles. It is a 3,500-year-old civilization that has been at times a friend, at times an enemy, and at times a stranger. It is a nation of contradictions: clinging to its 3,500-year-old traditions yet reaching to embrace the 21st century; governing by a communist ideology yet striving for capitalist riches. With more than a hint of elitism and without the self-effacing humility Confucius taught, the Chinese referred to their nation as the Middle Kingdom for hundreds of years until the mid-19th century when Britain and Western powers fought, won and carved up China like freshly killed fame. For the Chinese, one of the worst things to suffer from is the loss of respect or ``to lose face'', and in the years following the first Opium Wars, that is exactly what happened to China. It was not just one Chinese person who ``lost face'', it was an entire nation. Therein lies the psyche of the Chinese civilization and of many of the Chinese people. Wounds still fresh from its harried humiliation by the Western powers--150 years is merely a catnap for a nation so old--China yearns to be a global superpower. For much of the 20th century, China has been playing catch up with the West. An inordinate amount of time and energy went toward improving China's economy, military and diplomacy to achieve the most elusive yet important goal for the Chinese people as a collective whole--to regain what had been lost--respect. It is the motivational undercurrent in China's actions. That is the important lesson to be learned for the international community, and the United States in particular. The lesson is that China is willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of ruling ideology, to become a global superpower. The dangers of such a motivating factor are readily apparent. China, despite its official pronouncements, has acted in some instances no different than a rogue nation, such as Libya, North Korea, or Iraq. Military spending has shot up over 40 percent in the 1990's, and research and development of high-tech weapons of warfare and mass destruction have been prioritized. China has illegally sold nuclear technology to Pakistan, smuggled AK-47s into San Francisco, and collaborates with terrorist nations such as Iran to improve their missile and weapons technology. The leaders in Beijing also shot missiles at Taiwan when that democratic island of 22 million people held its first democratic elections. This year, the Chinese leaders in Beijing boldly trumpeted the threat of force to retake Taiwan if reunification talks do not begin. In addition, China's utter contempt for human rights is well documented. In fact, this year the Clinton administration's own State Department came out with a report detailing China's deteriorating human rights record. On November 29, 1999, Chinese police summarily arrested and beat Fu Sheng, a member of the illegal China Democracy Party. Since last July, more than 35,000 people associated with the Falun Gong spiritual movement have been detained. No one is safe. Even Christians are imprisoned and thrown in forced labor camps strictly on the basis of their religious beliefs. As recently as February of this year, the 80-year-old head of China's underground Roman Catholic Church who was previously imprisoned for nearly for 30 years for refusing to denounce the Pope. China, despite its communist roots and totalitarian regime, realizes that in the modern world it not only takes military strength to become a superpower, it also takes economic strength. By borrowing pages from the success stories of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, China turned toward and embraced a managed market economy driven by export growth as one of the primary engines for economic growth. As part of the plan to raise China's stature in the international community, China has been involved in long and protracted negotiations to join GATT, and now, WTO. The 13-year long effort finally came to a head on November 15, 1999 when the administration signed an agreement with China to provide for her accession to the WTO. China is widely viewed as having made a number of major concessions in the agreement, but can we really trust China? Chinese leaders say one thing and do another. China has historically agreed to many things and has implemented relatively few of them. For example, after threatened with major trade sanctions by the United States, China agreed to a sweeping 1992 market access agreement to remove major market barriers to United States products. The agreement was supposed to have been fully implemented by the end of 1997. We're still waiting. Mr. Speaker, growing up in post-World War II Chicago was a learning experience for me. In school, in church, and in the ballfields, we learned the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, friends and enemies. When we played 16-inch softball, we knew the rules, and we played by them. We played with honor. It was wrong to cheat, and cheaters were punished. In school, we learned about our Nation's history and how to be good citizens and proud patriots. In the schoolyards, we learned who were our friends and who weren't. In church, we learned about morality, God's teachings on good and evil, and right and wrong. Those lessons remain with me to this day. These things don't change and, unfortunately, neither has the People's Republic of China. Despite all their words, despite all their promises, their actions speak louder. They continue to imprison and torture Chinese dissidents, set up slave labor camps, practice forced abortions, shoot missiles at democratic Taiwan, sell weapons technology to Libya, and break trade agreements. They pretend to be our friends, yet through their actions, reveal themselves as anything but. We should not reward a totalitarian regime that is run by a Communist party--a dictatorship with little regard for human dignity and common decency. We should not reward a nation that has, through its actions and deeds, done so much that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, we are free Americans nurtured on the Declaration of Independence. We are the land of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson-- Americans who believe in justice and the dignity of man. So, let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate profits. Let us not forget the democratic ideals that form the foundation of this nation. I urge my colleagues to remember the lessons from their youth--of right and wrong--and do what is right. Vote ``no'' to PNTR for China.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Casimira (Myra) Lenard, a monumental philanthropist and Polish-American activist, who sadly passed away on May 1st at Walter Reed Army Hospital. For nearly 40 years, Myra fought to find jobs for the meager, provide rations for the suffering, and promote democracy for the oppressed. Myra Lenard was born in Poland and immigrated to Chicago with her parents in 1927. Seven years later, she became a United States citizen. In 1962, she moved to Washington, DC after her surviving husband Casimir (Colonel, U.S. Army, Ret.) was assigned to the Pentagon. Soon later, she began a very successful 20-year career in the private sector employment placement industry, overseeing 11 placement offices on the east coast. Myra was highly respected in her profession, serving in several leadership positions within the personnel services industry. As president of the Capital Area Personnel Services Association, she successfully lobbied for title 7, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for equal employment opportunities. In 1975, Myra was widely acknowledged for her efforts to find ``fee-free'' work for several hundred Vietnamese refugees. In addition, she used her many offices to support the growing Solidarity labor movement in Poland. In 1981, Myra left the private sector to become executive director of the Polish American Congress [PAC] in Washington, DC. She continued to support Solidarity by organizing record fundraising, including 22 railroad cars of relief goods, valued at $7 million in 1981. To mark the first anniversary of Solidarity, she organized a ``Solidarity convoy'' of 32 large container trucks, valued at over $10 million. Myra Lenard's outstanding leadership of the Polish American Congress and its accompanying charitable fund [PACCF] allowed the organization to qualify for Federal funds, administered through the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID] and the Combined Federal Campaign [CFC]. In addition, the PAC's Washington, DC office administered a series of National Endowment for Democracy [NED] grants, helping to sustain a measure of hope for democracy in the Communist-controlled Poland. Furthermore, Myra expanded the relationships of the PAC with the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, Department of State, and several other governmental agencies. Through her many contacts, the Polish American Congress engaged in strong lobbying campaigns for the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, as well as the Support of Eastern European Democracy Act of 1989 [SEED ACT], containing needed appropriations for Poland. Some of Myra's later efforts included lobbying to secure to the present Oder-Neisse border with Germany and Poland's recent entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. For these many efforts, Myra Lenard was appropriately given numerous accolades, including Poland's highest award for foreign civilians. Today, I am pleased to offer my own words of praise to my colleagues about this great leader. While Poland was still suffering from the plague of Communism, Lech Walesa stated: ``The supply of words in the world market is plentiful but the demand is falling--let deeds follow words now.'' Mr. Speaker, Casimira (Myra) Lenard followed these words with unending devotion and activism. Again, I thank her for over 40 years of tremendous service for two great nations.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, on April 21, 2000, a powerful natural gas explosion rocked a home in the Village of Justice, a southwest suburb of Chicago at 4:00 a.m. In a matter of seconds, the home of two distinguished senior citizens became engulfed in a blazing fire. Luckily, their new next-door neighbor, ``Bobby'' Dyer, was quickly awakened by the loud concussion. Barefoot, Dyer rushed to the scene to see his neighbors trapped in their rapidly disintegrating house. Blocking their exit was a pile of debris from the former eave over the front door. Heroically, Dyer pushed aside the heavy aluminum/wood roofing material and helped the couple through their heavily damaged front door frame. After dialing 911, he supplied his neighbors with initial first aid and clothing. By virtually all accounts, Bob Dyer's actions thankfully saved the lives of his two neighbors. Valentine and Eileen Michalowski received second and third degree burns, as well as heavy smoke inhalation. However, I understand that they will fully recover from their serious injuries. I was pleased to hear that the Village of Justice will hold its first ever Saturday board meeting, where May 21-27, 2000 will be appropriately named ``Bobby Dyer'' week. Mr. Speaker, I strongly echo the congratulations of the Village of Justice and I thank Mr. Dyer for his immediate contributions to the 3d Congressional District of Illinois.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my dismay that H.R. 3709 has been brought to the floor without ample time to discuss the important issue of the Internet taxation moratorium and its effects. There were no hearings held, nor time allotted for retailers, states, cities and counties to speak out on the issue. Clearly, we could have utilized the eighteen months before the October 21st, 2001 moratorium expiration for meaningful discussions on the issue. The spirit behind the Internet Tax Freedom Act was to allow the Internet to flourish, while examining an approach to Internet sales. Adding five years to the current moratorium is not a step towards finding a permanent solution. We must work towards a solution that everyone can work with now, not three years from now, nor five years from now. If we wait, many of our country's ``brick and mortar'' businesses may likely be wiped out by the E-commerce that can sell for less and avoid collecting taxes. This is not fair competition. We cannot ignore the effects that H.R. 3709 would have on our states' and localities' tax base. According to a University of Tennessee study, the revenue lost by 2003 is projected to be $20 billion per year. This is the revenue that we rely on for state and local services, as well as for education. How can the Internet and high-tech industry continue to flourish without educating our children, the future of America? We need to find a long-term resolution to this important issue, not avoid dealing with it for nearly six years. For this reason, I will be voting against H.R. 3709 and its amendments.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for granting me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the modern world today, we see a world where multinational corporations controlling billions of dollars can, with the tap of the mouse, in a short e-mail, move manufacturing plants, facilities and capital from one country to another in the never-ending pursuit of higher profits. Untold numbers of American workers have had their lives disrupted like chess pieces on a chess board. Day after day, night after night, the evening news and Wall Street economists trumpet our economic prosperity in the 1990s. We see record corporate profits drive the stock market to all-time highs, and an elite group of shareholders partaking in the profits. Unfortunately, they do not normally talk about the real lives and real people hidden behind the rosy statistics of economic growth. Real people who are coming to the conclusion that unfortunately, the American dream may be just a dream in reality. They do not talk about a Nation where working families pay more and more taxes and big business pays less and less. They do not talk about stacked wages that have plagued the American middle class for well over a decade. They do not talk about big business and the 111,000 layoffs in 1998 that jumped 600 percent to a record 677,795 layoffs in 1998. That is 600 percent in less than 10 years to 677,795 layoffs in 1998 alone. They do not talk about the $68 billion trade deficit with China. They do not talk about the 2.6 million manufacturing jobs sucked away by our growing trade deficit in the last 20 years alone. That is 2.6 million manufacturing jobs. They do not talk about the subjugation of public values and even patriotism to the continual pursuit of potential profits. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things Wall Street does not want to talk about, and there are a lot of things they do not want American working families to know. So they only tell us what they want us to hear. We hear about how free trade and free markets are such wonderful things, that we need to give PNTR to China for us to continue our robust economic growth. But contrary to the elitist proclamation of the high priests of free trade, free trade will not save the world and it certainly is not going to save the surging U.S. trade deficit. Mr. Speaker, giving China PNTR will only make a bad situation even worse. We already have an unfair trading relationship. On average, we only apply a 2 percent tariff on Chinese products. China turns around and slaps a 17 percent tariff on U.S. products, even after the U.S. and China had an agreement back in 1992 where China promised to remove major market barriers to U.S. products. China broke that promise. Again I say, China broke that promise. So what is to say that China will not break the one brokered and agreed to last year? What is to say that China, after agreeing to certain concessions in return for the Clinton administration's support for China's acceptance by WTO will not turn around and break the agreement once again? The Chinese leaders in Beijing did it at least once before and, in my opinion, they will certainly do it again. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. China is still a totalitarian regime run by a single party, the Chinese Communist party, and it is a party that is intent on keeping its grip on power. We did not give PNTR to the Soviet Union when it was a Communist dictatorship. We did not give it to Cuba. We did not give it to North Korea. We did not give it to Libya. Why should we treat China any differently? The answer is quite simple: We should not. Mr. Speaker, PNTR comes to a vote before this body next week. I urge all of my colleagues to think about this and how this trade deal could possibly benefit American workers, or, for that matter, workers across this world. Really, that is the simple question: does this benefit working men and women in this country or around the world? The very simple, direct answer is no, and that is the way we should vote on this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) made mention of the hearings that took place. Let me interrupt myself for a moment once again. I see I have been joined here by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), and I would now like to yield to him.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her superb statement. I have been working on this issue for a long time but there are several items that she made mention of in her statement that I was not aware of in regards to the four quadrant gates in Illinois and a couple of other things she made mention of. So I appreciate her contribution very much. General Leave

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this special order.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the previous speaker in his special order. I thought he did a magnificent job in numerous areas. I am proud to have had the opportunity of sitting here and listening to him, and I certainly plan on supporting many of the pieces of legislation that he spoke about. Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight a serious problem that all of America will soon experience. As early as next January, thousands of cities, towns, villages and hamlets will be deafened by the wail of a train whistle. That is right. If the Federal Railroad Administration's proposed rule on the sounding of locomotive horns at every highway rail crossing goes into effect, the ear-splitting sounds of train whistles will wake people at night and generally disrupt people's lives. Unfortunately, few Members of Congress know about the problem that confronts us. As mandated by the Swift Rail Act of 1994, the FRA came up with rules on train horns; and in January, the FRA came out with their proposed rule. While I understand that the rule is intended to save people's lives, the way in which the rule was written will severely impact millions of people in a very negative way. At this point, I would like to suspend my remarks and yield to one of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and then I will resume my comments in regards to this matter.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for his comments. I appreciate his contribution to our special order. He certainly was right on target. I hope that we will be joined later by a few more Members from Illinois and from other parts of the country but in light of the fact that I am the only other speaker I will start again. As I mentioned, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) mentioned and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), there were four hearings held in Chicago and to show how much this affects the City of Chicago and the Chicago-land area, there were 12 hearings held nationwide. Four of the 12 hearings were held within the Chicago-land area. The hearings were attended by the Federal Railroad administrator, Administrator Jolene Molitoris, and we certainly appreciate that but that once again shows how significant she thinks the Chicago-land area will be affected by this notice of proposed rulemaking. The four hearings in Chicago were extremely well attended. Over 200 people testified in opposition to this rule as it is constituted at the present time. I do want to say that the Federal Railroad Administration, underneath the leadership of the administrator, has been very understanding, has been very cooperative, because they recognize the huge impact this rule has on the City of Chicago, the County of Cook, the surrounding counties and the State of Illinois. I would like to mention this law, when it was passed back in 1992, it was a law that was not debated in the House. It was not passed in the House. It was not debated in the Senate. It was not passed in the Senate. It was placed in a conference report on another bill. It became known as the Swift Rail Act, but this was not a bill that went through the normal process that we have here on Capitol Hill. It was put in, as I say, in conference. It was under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce at the time. Now it is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Now, as I say, this was passed back in 1992. In 1995, I did get an amendment put on an FRA bill that granted communities one year to implement this in the event this rule came down. Fortunately, the Federal Railroad Administration did extend that to 2 or 3 years, that would be 2 to 3 years from January of 2000 when this notice of proposed rulemaking was announced. Now, Chicago, as I mentioned earlier, is very unique. It is unique because it is the center of the railroad industry in North America, has been probably since the time the first railroad train pulled in to Chicago. That is good and it is bad. It is very good because it creates a lot of jobs, it creates a lot of economic development in the City of Chicago. It is bad because it causes us to have an enormous number of grade crossings within the Chicago-land area. Illinois has 899 whistle bans as allowed under the Illinois Commerce Commission, which is almost half of all the whistle bans in the United States of America. In fact, it comes down to being 46 percent of all the grade crossings in this country that will be affected by this rule are within the State of Illinois. Of those 899 grade crossings, 780 of those are located within the six counties that make up the Chicago-land area; 355 of those are within the City of Chicago itself. The new proposed rule will give these communities only, as I mentioned earlier, 2 to 3 years to come up with supplemental safety measures. Now I believe that it is absolutely necessary that the Federal Railroad Administration grant us a minimum of 10 years to implement what they want this rule to implement. As the rule is presently constituted, we need at least 10 years to implement this rule because it is going to cost an enormous amount of money in the State of Illinois. On top of that, it is highly questionable whether or not the equipment can be manufactured quickly enough and it can be installed by railroad crews that have to install it in a 2 to 3 year period of time. All the estimates that I have received say it is going to take financially and equipment-wise and installation-wise at least 10 years to do it, underneath the present rule. Now 64 percent of all Illinois population live within one mile of public highway crossings, 64 percent. Forty-six percent of all residents of Illinois will be severely negatively impacted by this rule. That comes directly from the Federal Railroad Administration. Yet in Illinois, collisions at public grade crossings have declined by 52 percent since 1989. In northeastern Illinois, injuries have declined by 70 percent. In northeastern Illinois, fatalities have declined by 65 percent. So obviously Illinois is doing a great deal right when it comes to railroad safety. The FRA states that 177,000 people in Illinois would be impacted by the rule, of which 74,000 would be severely impacted. The Chicago area transportation study estimates that 1,644,000 people in Illinois would be impacted, of which over 1 million people would be severely impacted by this rule. The FRA estimates the cost at $116 million for whistle-ban communities, based on assumptions that every community will install the lowest cost alternatives to whistles. The Chicago area transportation study estimates the cost of a reality-based alternative to be between $440 million and $590 million for whistle-ban communities. That is an awful lot of money. Illinois will spend $95 million in the year 2000 making improvements at roughly 200 crossings. If the proposed rule goes into effect, the State of Illinois will be forced to spend money at an already safe crossing instead of at bad crossings in down-state Illinois which account for only 1.5 percent of daily traffic but 33 percent of the accidents and 40 percent of the fatalities in Illinois. The FRA's analysis indicates that whistle-ban crossings, without gates, are the biggest danger to the public and are the primary targets for this proposed rule. Since 77 percent of the crossings in northeast Illinois have gates and all of the whistle bans in northeast Illinois have gates, why should northeastern Illinois be a target of this one- size-fits-all rule? The FRA study admits to an anomaly in the Chicago area, as the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) mentioned, where collisions were 16 percent less frequent. The FRA claims it was caused by an outdated inventory of crossings, but using a complete inventory of crossings and FRA methodology CAT still found, that is the Chicago area transportation study, they still found that the collisions are 4.5 percent less frequent at whistle-ban crossings. Now we have made, I think, significant progress with the Federal Railroad Administration in modifying the rule they were originally going to propose a number of years ago. We cannot negotiate with the Federal Railroad Administration until the first part of next month because up until the close of the comment period they are prohibited by law from negotiating. Administrator Molitoris, I believe, is open to further compromise. I think that this is going to be absolutely necessary, because there are a number of people here in the House who do not believe that this law is needed at all, particularly not in the State of Illinois, where the State of Illinois is doing such a significant job. If we do not get significant compromise out of the Federal Railroad Administration, I believe that there will be a move afoot to repeal this law entirely. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it is imperative that we get at least 10 years to implement this rule, with further modifications, not where we have to put up four gates, but where two gates will definitely be acceptable to the Federal railroad administration. Right now approximately $150 million is spent each year in this country by the Federal Government on upgrading railroad crossings. With this rule going into effect, there is going to be a much greater need for funds from the Federal Government, as well as funds from state governments and from local municipalities. I have a bill at the present time that I have introduced that would bring in approximately $160 million more each year to the Federal Government for upgrading grade crossings. That bill takes the 4.3 cents that railroads now pay on their diesel fuel tax that goes to deficit reduction. Based upon all of the statements that I hear out here in Washington throughout the country, we no longer have a deficit in this country, we have a significant surplus in this country, so I do not believe that we should be taking the 4.3 cents that the railroads pay for deficit reduction any longer and putting it into the general revenue of this country. I believe that we should take that 4.3 cents and put it into a trust fund to upgrade rail crossings in this country. As I say, it would increase the total amount available to over $300 million. We would certainly have to add a portion from the state and a portion from the local municipalities, something like 75 percent from the Federal Government, 15 percent from the state, or 20 percent from the state and 5 percent from the local municipalities. This money thereby would be helping out railroads, it would be helping out citizens, it would be helping out safety in this country. I would also like to say that this rule, I understand, originally was passed into law because the railroads were interested in reducing their liability as much as possible. I can understand that, I can appreciate that, but, because of that, I think it would be wise for the railroads to join in supporting my bill that would utilize their 4.3 cents now routed for deficit reduction, which apparently we no longer need it for, to upgrade rail crossings. I would also say part of my bill would say that when we pass the next highway transportation bill in this Congress, which will be in 3 or 4 years, that the 4.3 cents would revert back to the railroads and they would no longer have to be paying it. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to thank all the Members that have spoken here this evening. I want to thank the individuals who have submitted statements for the record, particularly the Speaker of the House. This is an enormous problem for the country, but it is a gigantic problem for the State of Illinois, and particularly for Northeastern Illinois. The money is not available, the time is not available, the resources are not available to do what the Federal Railroad Administration wants us to do underneath the existing rule. On top of that, Northeastern Illinois probably has done more and the State of Illinois has probably done more than any state in the union to upgrade railroad safety. We simply must have this rule amended so that many of the very worthwhile things that have been done by the State of Illinois and Northeastern Illinois will suffice as far as the Federal railroad administration is concerned to bring us up to a superb safety standard. Certainly we do not want to see anyone lose their life at a grade crossing, but I think that we in Illinois have done an outstanding job in resolving this problem, and if we can get some further help from the Federal Government in regard to funding, I think that we will even do a better job.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize two often- overlooked groups of people who have been innocent casualties of NAFTA, American and Mexican truck drivers. While I have repeated time and time again that American truckers will be forced to compete with their unregulated and underpaid counterparts south of the border, Mexican truck drivers are often overlooked casualties. But the truth is that NAFTA and its evil minions have forced Mexican truck drivers to work 1, 2 and even 3 days straight to get their goods to the U.S.-Mexican border. The Mexican Government is one of the accomplices. Even though Canacar, the Mexican trucking association, has asked for 5 more years before the border is opened to unlimited truck hauling, the Mexican Government continually demands that the border be open immediately. Canacar admits that the Mexican truck fleet is old and in general disrepair, and neither the fleet nor its crews are safely ready to compete with newer American trucks and its rested drivers. So why does the Mexican Government continue to push for the cross- border opening? Because the Mexican Government does not seem to care much about its own citizens. Right now, the Mexican economic system forces truck operators to drive days on end, and, as reported in a story by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, most of these drivers are often fueled by narcotics. Mexican truck drivers freely admit that they would prepare for long hauls with beer, marijuana, pills, and cocaine. According to one driver, ``You must not eat too much meat on a long run, because it will make you sleepy and then you need more cocaine.'' Clearly, these drivers are sleep deprived. As another driver, Juan Alvarez, put it, ``The biggest problem is lack of sleep. I just drove 36 hours straight. Sometimes I get 6 to 12 hours off between loads.'' Juan does this for $500 for every 15 days that he drives. The Mexican Government and its company-sponsored union have forced these drivers into this predicament. Unlike American drivers, Mexican drivers have no right to speak freely or bargain collectively. They know little about the specifics of the NAFTA treaty, and their government likes it that way. So this brings us back to the American truck drivers, who would be unfairly forced to compete against Mexican truck drivers that are treated with indifference by their own government. But American truckers realize that the Mexican truck drivers are not treated as people by their government; and that, simply put, is not the fault of Mexican truck drivers. It is the Mexican system that is at fault. It is our fault for entering into a treaty with a country that has a completely different socio-economic and labor-management structure than ours. Thankfully, President Clinton did not open up the borders, as NAFTA called for, on January 1, 2000. Because if he did, we would have thousands of these sleep-deprived Mexican truckers driving all over our highways and byways throughout this Nation endangering other truckers and motorists on the road. In fact, many Mexican trucks and their drivers have already been found illegally in States throughout the United States of America. Most likely because their government tells them little about our current law. Clearly, President Clinton made the right decision by keeping the border closed. For the sake of all American truckers' jobs and the safety of the American public, let us hope it stays that way for a long, long time.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a remarkable group of dedicated health professionals--the 2 million+ registered nurses in the United States. These outstanding men and women, who work hard to save lives and maintain the health of millions of individuals, will celebrate National Nurses Week from May 6-12, 2000. Registered nurses will be honored by hosting or participating in several events such as rallies, childhood immunizations, community health screenings, publicity efforts, dinners, receptions and hospital events. I believe that any American who has ever been cared for by a nurse should join in the celebration of National Nurses Week. Modern nursing has been traced to Florence Nightingale's efforts during the Crimean War of the mid-19th century. Exactly 100 years after Nightingale's methods were first used, National Nurses Week was first observed from October 11-16, 1954. National Nurses Day and Week was eventually moved to May to include Florence Nightingale's birthday, which is May 12th. Using this year's theme: ``Nurses--Keeping the Care in Health Care,'' the American Nurses Association (ANA) and its 53 constituent associations will highlight the diverse ways in which registered nurses, the largest health care profession, are working to improve health care for Americans. Thankfully, the efforts of nurses are being widely acknowledged. According to the Gallup Poll's 1999 ``Honesty and Ethics'' survey, nursing ranked #1 of 45 among the most respected professions. Mr. Speaker, I will salute America's nurses during the week of May 6- 12, 2000. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight a serious problem that all of America will soon experience. As early as next January, thousands of cities, towns, villages, and hamlets will be deafened by the wail of a train whistle. That is right, if the Federal Railroad Administration's proposed rule on the sounding of locomotive horns at every highway crossing goes into effect as planned, the earsplitting sounds of train whistles will wake people at night and generally disrupt people's lives. Unfortunately, few Members of Congress know about the problem that confronts us. As mandated by the Swift Rail Act of 1994, the FRA came up with rules on train horns, and in January the FRA came out with a proposed rule. While I understand that the rule is intended to save people's lives, the way in which the rule was written will severely impact millions of people in a negative way. For instance, although the FRA states that over 74,000 people in Illinois currently living near a crossing that does not allow whistle-blowing will be severely impacted by this rule, in reality, according to the Chicago Area Transportation Study, 2.5 million residents in Illinois live within one quarter mile of a crossing, and would be severely impacted. This is a tremendous number of people that will be impacted by train whistles that range from 92 decibels to 144 decibels, an unhealthy level that rises above the threshold of pain. So what can be done about this rule? I and other Members of the Illinois delegation could argue that Illinois, and specifically Chicago, should have an exception from the FRA's rule because Illinois has done a good job in reducing accidents at crossings. In northeastern Illinois, injuries have declined by 70 percent and fatalities have declined by 65 percent since 1988. During the same period of time, the number of incidents dropped. Train traffic and average motor vehicle miles have both increased by 45 percent. Clearly, Illinois has been doing a good job with a tough assignment, and they should be allowed to continue with their rail safety program. But what if this rule does go into effect? In order to avoid the disruption of the whistles, money is needed to implement alternatives to whistle blowing, money that local communities do not have. The FRA estimates costs of $116 million for whistle ban communities based on assumptions that every community will install the lowest-cost alternative to whistles. The Chicago Area Transportation Study estimates the cost of reality- based alternatives to be between $440 million and $590 million for whistle ban communities across the Nation. This is a huge amount of money that our local communities simply do not have, and they will turn to their Congressmen to help them find the funding. So I say to my colleagues, join me and others in finding a solution that is available to everyone. Let us work on this rule so crossings could be made safer and so people can go along with their lives in a livable manner. At the very least, let us increase the amount of money going to grade crossings by passing my rail safety bill, H.R. 2060, that will double the amount of money that DOT gives to States for grade crossing safety. Because when next January rolls around, we had better be prepared for the train that is coming down the track for all of us.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, on April 12th, 2000, the Chicagoland Forest District will be sponsoring the 10th Annual Good Scout Benefit at Palermo's Fine Italian Cuisine & Banquets in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Every year at this event, longtime contributors to scouting are honored with the Good Scout Award. Youth scouting is a vital effort in Southwest Chicagoland, providing tomorrow's leaders with important values through outdoor recreation and community service. This year's recipients are Bill Hawkinson and Bob Wilcox. It now gives me great honor to recognize these scout leaders from the 3rd Congressional District for their vital service to our community. William ``Bill'' Hawkinson is a lifetime resident of South-side Chicago. Shortly after graduating from Purdue University, he moved to Oak Lawn in 1968. In 1975, Bill would become the Finance Chairman of District 06 for two years, helping to greatly expand the profile of local scouting. In his first year as Finance Chair, Bill was honored for his outstanding service with the Arrowhead award. Two years later, he would become District Chairman for a full year. Today, Bill remains deeply committed to the community and local scouting. Besides running two successful automotive dealerships, he actively volunteers for medical, educational and religious organizations in Chicagoland. Mr. Hawkinson still lives in Oak Lawn with his wife, Rickie, both proud parents of Jeff (26), April (21), and Erica (15). Robert ``Bob'' Wilcox has been actively involved in local scouting for 62 years. Bob's lengthy resume includes service as Committee Chairman for St. Rita Troop 600, Commissioner Staff in the Iroquois and Forest District, and Vice-Chairman in the Iroquois District. For 12 years, Bob served as Scoutmaster for Troop 600, administering over 60 scouts. Over the years, Bob Wilcox received numerous scouting awards. In 1973, he received the distinguished St. George Award by Cardinal John Cody at Holy Name Cathedral. Bob's family clearly reflects his commitment to scouting. His son Robert is an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster for Troop 33 of La Grange, Illinois. Bob's daughter Jeanny is an Assistant Leader in Girl Scout Troop 170. All four of Bob's grandchildren are also involved in scouting. Fortunately, Bob's many talents have not been limited to scouting. In addition to his previously described proficiencies, Mr. Wilcox is a highly-respected retired 44-year optician and co-owner of Mahoney- Wilcox Opticians on North Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Again, it gives me great honor to recognize these scout leaders today. Mr. Speaker, I hope Bill Hawkinson and Bob Wilcox will continue to use their strength and leadership to set a positive example to the citizens of the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to say a few words about the budget resolution. Unfortunately, I will not be able to vote for the resolution or any of the five alternatives put forth before us tonight, because none of them have a good combination of debt relief and spending priorities. The Republican resolution offered by Mr. Kasich shortchanges important domestic programs by cutting non-defense discretionary spending by $6.9 billion over 2000 levels. This would mean that over 300,000 students will lose their Pell grants for college, and that almost 2,000 FBI and DEA agents will lose their jobs. In addition, the Kasich resolution does not provide near enough money for debt relief. Virtually all economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, have argued that there is almost no better way of improving the government's finances than reducing the debt. That is also why I am opposing the Democratic, Black Caucus, and Progressive Caucus alternatives, because they do not reserve enough money for debt reduction. In contrast, while I support the Blue Dog's position on using one- half of the surplus debt reduction, I believe that their high spending on defense--even higher than the Kasich resolution--jeopardizes other discretionary spending. Specifically, I am particularly opposed to the Blue Dog substitute because of the cuts in transportation spending. Under this proposal, and that of the CATS substitute and the Black Caucus substitute, it would not be possible to honor the commitments Congress made in TEA 21 and AIR 21 transportation bills, thereby risking the safety of millions of motorists and air travelers. I appreciate the hard work and effort that my colleagues put into their respective proposals, but unfortunately, I do not feel that any of these proposals have the right mix of savings for debt reduction and funding for our nation's infrastructure needs. Moreover, this and other recent budget resolutions have been composed of blue smoke and mirrors that do not reflect year-spending agreements, Rather, it is unfortunate that the budget resolutions have been and will continue to be breached during appropriation's negotiations between Congressional leaders and the White House. Hopefully, this and future Congress will break that cycle and lead us into the 21st Century in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reply to a few of the statements made by my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). First of all, in regards to the safety at O'Hare airport, the high density rule was never put in place because of safety, it was put in place for other reasons. About 6 or 7 months ago at a public hearing I had the Secretary of Transportation and also the head of the FAA, and I asked them about safety concerns at O'Hare airport. Both of them made mention of the fact that the high density rule was never put in place for any kind of safety rules whatsoever, it was put in place for other reasons. They had both recommended that the high density rule be removed at O'Hare airport. I asked them if removing the high density rule in the year 2000 would create any safety problems. Both of them testified, absolutely not. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who has opposed the lifting of the high density rule, was successful in having us move the date from 2000 back to 2002. There was a slow phase-in period at O'Hare airport from 2000 to 2002, and we can thank the lobbying by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on behalf of that for that being in the bill. The gentleman mentioned the increase in the passenger facility charge going from $3 to $4.50. We on the Federal level simply give the local airport authorities the ability to increase this passenger facility charge. We do not impose a new tax upon the flying public. But this increase in the PFC really will aid and assist the residents around O'Hare airport more than anyone else because it will enable us to soundproof more homes, more schools, more churches around O'Hare airport. Also the lifting of the high density rule will allow us to put more flights into O'Hare airport when people are not sleeping. At the present time, because of the high density rule, many flights have been scheduled during the night hours and the early morning hours. Lifting the high density rule will spread the flights out more during the course of the daytime operation of O'Hare airport, thereby giving the sleeping quality around O'Hare a considerable increase. So I understand the objections of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), but I think if you look at it in the short run and the long run, it is not only good for competition, it is really good for all the residents around O'Hare Airport.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding this time to me. I would like to address some of the issues that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) brought up. He is very much interested in building a third airport in the Chicagoland area in order to create economic development and job creation within his congressional district, which I understand and which I appreciate. But we do not build an airport to create economic development and cause job creation, we build an airport because we need additional capacity. Obviously, no one believes, other than a small group of people, that we need additional capacity in the Chicagoland area at the present time. Not one single carrier, passenger or freight, has been willing to go into a third airport located within the area of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). We all know that the carriers are the ones who really wind up footing the largest portion of the bill to create a new airport. The gentleman talks about the misuse of the PFC. I believe this statement is totally and completely untrue. The PFC has been utilized for what it is supposed to be utilized for. Some areas of the country have tried to utilize it for other purposes. In this new AIR-21 bill, we have tightened what the PFC can be utilized for. In my own community around Midway Airport and around O'Hare Airport, it has been used extensively for noise reduction in homes, in churches, in schools. The gentleman talks about not having competition at O'Hare Airport. At O'Hare Airport we have the two largest carriers in the world operating, American and United Airlines. They are in a fierce competition. Their competition drastically reduce prices at O'Hare Airport. They have flights from Chicago to Washington National starting at 6:30 a.m. running until 8 p.m. each and every day, every hour on the hour and every hour on the half-hour. This is terrific, terrific competition. The lifting of the high density rule will improve this competition. And last but not least, it was not Dan Rostenkowski that pushed through the House of Representatives a PFC. The man who spearheaded it, the man who saw the wisdom in doing it, the man that had the vision to do it, is sitting right behind me. At the time he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. Today he is the ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I also worked with him, but he was the man that did it. Dan Rostenkowski was busy taking care of tax matters at that time.