William Lipinski

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 the Scouting career. Joseph Michael Bulvan, a young man from Boy Scout Troop 475, Saint Daniel the Prophet Parish, Chicago, IL, will be honored at an Eagle Scout court of honor. 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. Joe has been actively involved in Scouting since September 1985 when he joined Cub Scout Pack 3475. There his enthusiasm and eagerness earned him consecutive years of perfect attendance and Scout of the Year awards. The Parvuli Dei Award, the Christian religious award meaning Family of God, was presented to Joe on behalf of his religious beliefs and practices. Joe also earned the Cub Scout World Conservation Award and reached the highest Cut Scout rank, the Arrow of Light. Joe began his trail to Eagle Scout in September 1988 when he joined Boy Scout Troop 475. Since that time, he has earned 30 badges, 9 more than were required of him. Joe displayed leadership abilities by serving his troop as den chief, quartermaster, historian, instructor, patrol leader, and senior patrol leader. The Ad Alteri Dei award was presented to Joe for his continued Christian beliefs and knowledge of the sacraments. His duty to country was displayed various times when Joe marched in the annual Memorial Day parades paying tribute to our veterans. He also helped organize a collection of basic necessities and support letters for the troops in Desert Storm. He volunteered his help to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, handicapped functions, and visited nursing homes. Joe was in charge of a clothing drive to benefit the Saint Vincent DePaul Society and the homeless. Joe put his camping and scouting skills to use on numerous weekend campouts and his five summer camp excursions to Owasippe Boy Scout Camp in Whitehall, MI. He also had the opportunity to be part of the 1993 National Jamboree held at Fort A.P. Hill, VA. Joe again earned the World Conservation Award, this time at the Boy Scout level. His fellow scouts honored him by electing him into the Order of the Arrow, a brotherhood of fellow campers. In light of the commendable leadership and courageous activities performed by this fine young man, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Joseph Michael Bulvan for attaining the highest honor in Scouting--the rank of Eagle. Let us wish him the very best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce on their resolution expressing support for Midway Airport which is located in my district. In their resolution, the Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce has stated their opposition to the development of a third Chicago airport or a metropolitan airport authority as both could have negative impacts on the future of Midway Airport. I support the efforts of the Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce and share with you, my colleagues, the following: Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce Resolution Whereas, the development of a third major airport in the Northeast Region on the State of Illinois has been and is the focus of ongoing studies and debate; and Whereas, the comprehensive planning of a third major airport must encompass the future of the existing metropolitan airports; and Whereas, Midway Airport, strategically located on the Southwest side of the City of Chicago, is the major economic stabilizing force in the Southwest region of the metropolitan area of the City of Chicago; and Whereas, the citizens of the Southwest side of the City and the citizens of many nearby Southwest suburbs including Oak Lawn depend on and benefit from the economic development generated by the operations at Midway Airport; and Whereas, strong support for the continuation of commercial air operations at Midway Airport has been urged by the Southwest Conference of Mayors; therefore, be it resolved that the Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce is opposed to a proposed Peotone Airport and supports the existing Midway Airport, and Whereas, we oppose the development of a metropolitan airport authority which would control the operations or finances of either O'Hare or Midway Airports.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues the birth of a baby. Jenna Marie Hurkes was born to MaryAnn and Jerry at 10:57 a.m. on August 25, 1995, weighing 8 pounds and 1 ounce. On an occasion such as this, I join with the members of the Hurkes family in wishing Jenna Marie all the best for the promising future ahead of her. I am sure that my colleagues join me in congratulating the proud parents, MaryAnn and Jerry, on this most joyous occasion. With their newborn baby, their lives together will no doubt continue to be an adventure. May this blessed addition to their lives bring them much happiness in the years to come.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a number of news publications in my district whose efforts to uphold the highest principles of journalism were recently recognized by the Illinois Press Association at its annual awards ceremony. First place winners in both large and small weekly newspaper divisions cover portions of my district. The Southtown Economist of Chicago was named best large daily newspaper in the State. Press Publications of Elmhurst, IL took first place in the large weekly category and The Regional News of Palos Heights, IL was the winner in the small weekly category. These newspapers also won other numerous awards. Other first place winners from my district included the Star newspaper of Chicago Heights, IL, which was honored for newspaper design and spot news photography, and The Doings of Hinsdale, IL which was recognized for an indepth report on the teardown of homes in its community. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate these newspapers and their hard-working journalists on earning these prestigious honors.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, cynicism toward our political process received another boost last week, as the American Medical Association [AMA] received key concessions in return for endorsing the Republican's plan to reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion. In return for their support, the AMA is being allowed to write key portions of [[Page H 10288]] this plan, molding the cuts with their own best interests in mind. The question is, Do they have the interests of senior citizens at heart? The answer, Mr. Speaker, sadly, is no. I have over 15,000 petitions from the senior citizens of my district opposed to the drastic cuts in Medicare. Every day I have dozens more calling my office asking me if they can sign a petition. ``How can I help, can I circulate more petitions?'' they ask. They tell me of hundreds of seniors who have not yet had a chance to have their voices heard, but who are very afraid and confused by the Republican Medicare proposal. What started out as a need to shore up Medicare, so as to keep our sacred contract with seniors, has turned into a raid to fund a $245 billion tax cut for America's wealthiest citizens. The Republicans wave a report by the Medicare trustees saying the system is headed toward bankruptcy. But nine times in the past, we have faced the threat of the trust fund going bankrupt and have dealt with it as it should be dealt with now--without fanfare and without partisan propagandizing. The report says only $90 billion is needed to insure the solvency of the trust fund, but the Republicans insist on cutting $270 billion to pay for their tax cut. To pay for this tax cut, Medicare recipients will pay more, but they will get less in return. By the year 2002, $1,700 less will be spent on each beneficiary. However, deductibles will be doubled and premiums will skyrocket. Seniors will pay an average of $3,300 more over 7 years and will be herded into managed care, forced to give up their own doctors. Simply said, seniors will be paying more for less. I recently sent a letter to the presidents of the various hospitals in my district, asking them to analyze the impact of the Republican proposals for Medicare. The president of MacNeal Hospital in Berwyn, IL writes, ``The reductions, as proposed, if implemented, could force MacNeal Hospital to close. Over the 7 year period from fiscal years 1996 through 2002, Medicare reimbursements would decrease by $92 million. As an employer, it would result in the direct loss of 3,000 jobs. Needed access for the people of your district to high-quality low-cost healthcare would obviously be dramatically and negatively affected.'' The president of West Suburban Hospital in Oak Park, IL wrote an emotionally moving letter. ``None of the news I have heard sounds encouraging. In fact, the question is not how will we serve patients in spite of funding shortfalls, but how will we serve them at all.'' According to figures from the American Hospital Association, this plan will result in a reduction in reimbursement to hospitals in metropolitan Chicago totaling $2,830,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 to 2002. Clearly, the Republicans Medicare proposal will hurt not only the elderly, but hospitals too, which will cause cost shifting to the private payer. A respected Chicago newspaper columnist recently noted the quiet silence of senior citizens on this proposal. Given the partisan rhetoric and the cynicism, it is no surprise that many are not vocally taking sides. But with these petitions, thousands have quietly sent me a message that this is too much change, much too fast. 968 pages of a bill to amend title 18 of Social Security Act to preserve and reform the Medicare Program, were delivered to me this morning. But these 968 pages are not intended to preserve and reform the Medicare Program. Rather, they are intended to destroy Medicare's security blanket for our seniors, and radically replace it with an untried system. Mr. Speaker, Medicare was signed into law 30 years ago as a sacred commitment with the elderly of America. I will not break that commitment. I do not want to see the elderly have to choose between paying their doctor's bills and their utility or grocery bills. Republicans are big on contracts these days. Let's keep our contract with seniors and preserve the Medicare system. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2425.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues the birth of a baby. Steven Michael Gaulin was born to Raymond and Paula Gaulin on January 27, 1994. On an occasion such as this, I join with the members of the Gaulin family in wishing Steven all the best for the promising future ahead of him. I am sure that my colleagues join me in congratulating the proud parents, Raymond and Paula, on this most joyous occasion. With their baby, their lives together will no doubt continue to be an adventure. May this blessed addition to their lives bring them much happiness in the years to come.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kevin J. Krasneck for rescuing two brothers from a fire on August 1, 1994. Alae- Eldeen, 6, and Mohammed, 3, were unconscious in a bedroom of their family's one-story house after fire broke out in their living room. Kevin, an off-duty firefighter, was among the neighbors and others who responded to the scene and attempted a rescue. He entered the house through a window in the bedroom adjacent to the boys' room, and despite intense heat and dense smoke which precluded visibility, crawled into the boys' room. He found Alae-Eldeen, carried him to the window that he had entered, and handed him out to another man. Kevin then returned to the bedroom for Mohammed, whom he also took to the window. After handing Mohammed outside to safety, Kevin exited the house. Alae-Eldeen and Mohammed were hospitalized for treatment of smoke inhalation and burns. Kevin also received hospital treatment for smoke inhalation. Fortunately, all three recovered. In honor of his extraordinary heroism, Kevin J. Krasneck was awarded the Carnegie Medal. This medal is given to civilians in the United States and Canada who risk their lives to an extraordinary degree while saving or attempting to save the lives of others. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Kevin for his bravery, and am sure that my colleagues would like to join me in acknowledging this heroic act.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute the Sikh nation of Khalistan on the eighth anniversary of its declaration of independence. The Sikh leadership declared Khalistan independent on October 7, 1987. Many of us have been long-time supporters of Khalistan's struggle to achieve its rightful place among the independent countries of the world. Frankly, it is in America's best interest to support the independence of Khalistan. Upon achieving its independence, Khalistan has promised to sign a friendship treaty with the United States, as opposed to occupying Indian regime which votes against the American position in the United Nations 84 percent of the time. I am inserting an article from India Abroad of May 5, 1995, on this issue. As India deploys the Prithvi nuclear missile and continues development of the Trishul, in violation of international standards, it would help promote America's interests in the region if we had a reliable, democratic ally which could serve as a buffer between India and Pakistan. But while strategic concerns are important, they are not the best reason to support freedom for Khalistan. We should support freedom for Khalistan because it is the right thing to do. Currently, the Sikhs of Khalistan live under the boot of brutal Indian oppression. This oppression has caused the deaths of more than 120,000 Sikhs since India's brutal attack on the Sikh Nation's holiest shrine, the Golden Temple at Amritsar, in June 1984. Thousands of Sikhs have been arrested, tortured and killed by the brutal Indian regime. Thousands of others have simply disappeared, never to be heard from again. In some cases, their families have been waiting for several years for word of their whereabouts. Our own State Department reported in 1994 that between 1991 and 1993, over 41,000 cash bounties were handed out to police officers as a reward for killing Sikhs. In November, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, had been paid the equivalent of $1.5 billion to organize and support covert terrorist activities in Punjab, Khalistan, and in neighboring Kashmir. I am again entering this report into the Record so that my colleagues can see clearly the true nature of Indian democracy. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Despite years of evidence that their repression has only strengthened the Sikh Nation's determination to liberate Khalistan, the Indian regime continues to increase the brutality and tyranny in a futile effort to scare the Sikh Nation into submitting to India's brutal rule. So great is the Indian regime's fear of the Sikh Nation that when Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann called for a peaceful movement to liberate Khalistan, he was arrested and held in illegal detention for 6 months. So great is their fear that when Jaswant Singh Khalra, general secretary of the Human Rights Wing, Shiromani Akali Dal issued a report showing that the regime had arrested, tortured, and killed 25,000 young Sikh men, then declared their bodies unidentified and cremated them, the police kidnapped Mr. Khalra and made him disappear like so many before him. These are merely two of the most recent examples of India tyranny in occupied Khalistan. There are so many other examples, large and small, that it would take me the rest of the session to list them. There is only one way to secure freedom for the Sikh Nation; a sovereign and independent Khalistan. Only by supporting independence for Khalistan can the United States, the bastion of freedom for the world, help to insure freedom in the Indian subcontinent. It is time for our government to speak out in support of freedom for Khalistan and the other nations living under Indian misrule. Until then, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Sikh Nation on Khalistani independence day. [From Heritage Foundation Study: India Abroad, May 5, 1995] Think Tank Lists India's U.N. Votes and Receipt of Aid A study by the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank in Washington, has found that India is high on the list of the top 10 countries receiving American aid though it voted against the U.S. at the United Nations, Aziz Haniffa writes. The study noted that India, which is slated to receive over $155 million in U.S. aid this year, voted against the U.S. last year at the U.N. Meanwhile, the World Bank is seeking to convince industrial nations, specially the U.S., that aid can be profitable, Ela Dutt reports.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 743, the so-called TEAM Act. This bill would fundamentally change the National Labor Relations Act by amending section 8(A)(2), which makes employer-dominated workplace committees illegal. Supporters of the TEAM Act claim that this bill is necessary for businesses to encourage employee involvement in labor-management work teams. There is no doubt that teamwork is key to successful efforts to design, manufacture, and deliver new and improved products and services. However, close to 30,000 employee involvement programs already exist in businesses throughout the Nation. There is nothing in the law that prevents employers from forming cooperative labor- management committees. What section 8(A)(2) does prohibit is an employer organization that dominates or interferes with an employee organization that deals [[Page H 9536]] with the employer on terms and conditions of employment. This restriction is a fundamental feature of American labor law, established to ensure employee independence and freedom. By removing the protection of section 8(A)(2), employers would be able to form employee organizations that would address terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, hours, and work conditions. Employers would also be able to select its leaders and dictate exactly which issues would be discussed. In effect, employees would lose their democratic rights in the workplace. Their right to organize would seriously be impeded. Under employer-dominated organizations, they would no longer be able to chose their own representatives. They would not even be able to decide which issues of concern would be discussed. This is not employee involvement--it is employer control. By allowing employer dominated employee organizations, the TEAM Act will simply place yet another barrier between employers and workers who want to have a true voice on the job. Only when employee representatives are free from employer manipulation are the interests and concerns of the represented thorougly and adequately voiced. The TEAM Act is an unwarranted piece of legislation that will once again silence workers, bringing back sham company unions to the American workplace. We cannot afford to regress back to the days when workers had no rights. Please join me in opposition to H.R. 743, the TEAM Act. Thank you.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the entrepreneurial achievements of a select group of leaders from the Chicago metropolitan business community. I am proud to salute these entrepreneurs and founders of small and mid-sized businesses for their induction into the 11th Annual Entrepreneurship Hall of Fame, Thursday evening, October 19, 1995, in Chicago. The Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies in the College of Business Administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago cofounded and continues to sponsor the Entrepreneurship Hall of Fame, honoring outstanding business leaders whose spirit and success help keep America's business community strong and vital. The sponsors, the Arthur Anderson Enterprise Group, William Blair & Company, LaSalle National Bank, Lord Bissell & Brook, and the University of Illinois Chicago, have enabled the university to cement this partnership and recognize outstanding entrepreneurs. The program is exceptional because it creates an active partnership between the academic and business communities. Students and entrepreneurs alike benefit from an exchange of knowledge, experience and creativity. Today, I would like to congratulate these leaders, each of whom is listed below, for using their imagination and resources to foster an excellent program which enhances the quality of higher education and underscores the value of entrepreneurship in America. I am sure that my colleagues join me in recognizing these entrepreneurial leaders for their important contributions to employment generation, the entrepreneurial spirit and our great Nation. 1995 Inductees to the Entrepreneurship Hall of Fame Robert Alcala Richard Alcala Robert H. Boller Phillip Corcoran Charles Wolande Tom Corcoran Barbara R. Davis James L. Gaza Sue Ling Gin James L. Hanig Henry Kalmus Donald Lord Helene J. Kenton-Taylor Terry L. Kirch Jim Liautaud Richard B. Mazursky Jack Miller Melody O'Neal Shan Padda Bruno A. Pasquinelli Anthony R. Pasquinelli Frank Portillo Michael A. Regan Sally J. Rynne Robert Sapio Mitchell H. Saranow Gary F. Seamans Gordon Segal Bill Steffenhagen Ann Steffenhagen Sanford Takiff Janet Taylor Charlie H. Trotter Bob M. White Arthur W. Wondrasek Jr.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues the birth of a baby. Reanna Jean Matyas was born to Richard and Doreen Matyas, who reside in Oak Lawn, IL. Reanna Jean Matyas was born at 11:39 p.m. on July 1, 1995. On an occasion such as this, I join with the members of the Matyas family in wishing the newborn all the best for the promising future ahead of her. I am sure that my colleagues join me in congratulating the proud parents, Richard and Doreen, on this most joyous occasion. With their newborn baby, their life together will no doubt continue to be an adventure. May this blessed addition to their lives bring them much happiness in the years to come.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Coleman's amendment and wish to express my strongest possible opposition to repealing the section 13(c) program. Repealing 13(c) would mean threatening the rights of hundreds of thousands of transitworker across this Nation. I welcome the opportunity to reform the section 13(c) program. But the rule for this bill does not permit an amendment to reform 13(c), only to eliminate it. We have no choice but to strike this repeal from the bill. In doing so, we give the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee the chance to make the necessary reforms in this program without trampling on the rights of working American men and women. Mr. Chairman, I cannot more strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The repeal should not be in this bill. It should not have been protected from a point of order. But more than anything else, section 13(c) should not be repealed.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get one or two points straightened out here. It has been mentioned a number of times that the Regional Transportation Authority of Illinois supports the elimination of 13(c). That may very well be correct, but that is simply the administrative agency. There are four operating agencies under the RTA: The CTA; the Chicago Transit Authority; Metro Suburban Railroads; and Pace Suburban Buses. Those three entities all oppose the elimination of 13(c). Mr. Chairman, I would also like to state that it has been mentioned on this floor that the mayor of the city of Chicago supports the elimination of 13(c). I have checked with him as recently as this morning, and he tells me that it is absolutely not correct, so I wanted to set the record straight on those issues. I ask Members to support Coleman. Oppose Wolf and support Coleman.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. I think we all know that the gentleman supports the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission. That has been well documented over the years. But this amendment goes beyond previous years' attempts to sunset the ICC. This amendment would take a deliberate, organized process of transition from the ICC to DOT and throw it completely off course. Nobody here has any illusions about the future of the ICC. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Railroads, on which I am the ranking Democratic member, is currently in the process of drafting legislation to sunset the ICC. We are in the process of determining which functions of the agency should be retained and absorbed by the Department of Transportation or a Commerce Board. Slashing the ICC's appropriation in this bill is tantamount to pulling the rug out from under our feet as we try to move forward--not to mention the disruption it would have on the close down of the ICC itself. The truth is that Mr. Hefley's amendment would not fund sufficient staff to perform ICC functions which are certain to be transferred. In fact, the amendment would hamstring the Federal Government's ability to carry out regulatory functions that even the regulated industries have said are necessary. This amendment would fund only 53 positions at DOT for all remaining ICC rail functions. These 53 people would process all proposed rail consolidations and mergers, line abandonment and construction proposals, and line sale requests. They would also review shipper rate complaints, all rail car supply and interchange disputes, and shipper complaints seeking competitive access to more than one rail carrier. These individuals would also process the 300 motor carrier undercharge cases currently pending before the Commission. I know that my colleagues are familiar with the undercharge crisis and recognize that millions of dollars of disputes are currently pending in courts around the country. Many of them will eventually be referred to the Commission or its successor. I think my point is quite clear: 53 people cannot effectively perform all these tasks. And none of these areas is slated for deregulation. This amendment would wreak havoc on the ICC and the transition to its successor. And let's be honest here--the affected industries and the American people will pay the price if this misguided amendment passes. It is one thing to support regulatory reform and efficiency, and entirely another to intentionally underfund and thereby undermine a sound regulatory process. [[Page E 1510]] You want to get rid of the Interstate Commerce Commission? Fine. But let's do it right. Vote ``no'' on the Hefley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan. The administration's high-speed rail development program is designed to reduce the cost and improve the safety and performance of the kinds of high-speed rail projects that are most likely to find application in the United States. The program is practical. It is targeted at safe, economical, environmentally friendly all-weather service by the year 2000 in all areas of the Nation. Such service alleviates the need for additional highway and airport capacity which are increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain. And we're not talking about building new track here. It will make use of existing rail lines and doesn't require the expense of major new construction. We have seen from the tremendous Amtrak ridership on the Northeast corridor that the public wants and will use high-speed rail technology throughout the country. This technology could be implemented in city pairs such as Detroit-Chicago, Chicago-St. Louis, Portland-Seattle, San Diego-Los Angeles, and Miami-Orlando, where trip times can be under 3 hours. The Federal role proposed here is to provide the technology base. The States of Michigan, Illinois, Washington, California, Florida, and New York want high-speed rail and have already dedicated State funds. It is unreasonable and uneconomical to expect 15 or 20 States to each undertake technology development programs. If this amendment were to pass, the progress that has already been made in this area will have been for naught. I understand that the gentleman is offering this amendment because he wants to save money. If his amendment passes, we will have thrown away the substantial and worthwhile investments we've made. Now that's a waste of money. [[Page E 1508]] Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. High- speed rail has a legitimate future in this Nation. Let's not throw it away.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the pastor of my local parish in Chicago, the Rev. Marcel J. Pasciak. He writes a weekly column in our parish guide entitled ``Father Marc's Markings.'' I found Father Marc's column of July 16, 1995, to be very informative, enjoyable, inspirational, and very much needed in today's society. I think so much of his words that I wish to share them with all who read the Congressional Record. Following is Father Marc's Markings: Front Porch People We're just not front porch people anymore. In the old neighborhood of Brighton Park, Back of the Yards, and Canaryville, when the temperature reached 80 degrees, families took to the front porch or front stoop. Chairs, stools, pillows, made their way outside as Dad read the paper, Mom knitted or crocheted and Junior with his friends played CLUE or SORRY (Monopoly money blew around too easily in the wind). Neighbors cradling brown parcels hurrying home from the corner grocery store stopped to exchange greetings and swap stories. People from other porches down the street meandered over to say ``hello'' or check on the White Sox score. Ladies exchanged gardening tips; men boasted about their new lawn mowers or tools; children either drank cans of Pepsi or hurriedly unwrapped popsicles. Tugging on their mother's aprons, they pleaded for one last bicycle ride around the block before it gets too dark. ``The Front Porch'' meant family and neighborhood. It reflected a less complicated, more innocent lifestyle in America. The front porch was not only a place to cool off on a hot summer night; but a place where community began, where different ages mixed together, laughing, talking, sipping cool drinks. Relationships were deepened and values were communicated--it was in a sense a holy place. In our air-conditioned society of 1995, we no longer come out on the stoop to see our neighbors or share board games with the youngsters. We huddle in front of our cable televisions or VCR's with remote control units poised in hand. We don't even huddle together since just about everyone on the household has their own television set. Table games have been replaced by computers or by video games (Nintendo or Sega * * * some quite violent). Children no longer feel energetic enough to ride their bicycles or play catch with Dad in the back yard. Moms, tired from shopping in the large suburban malls, catch up with laundry or do housework in the evenings; many have put in a full day at work and just don't feel sociable. Dads may still tinker in the garage or basement workshops-- before couching down with beer and snackies before the television set ready for a long evening before the tube (watching sports or the newest Bruce Willis movie). No room for the front porch here. Yes--times have changed. We no longer have that front porch mentality. No amount of politicians like Robert Dole who promote family values or clergymen inviting church participation or civic leaders calling for neighborhood pride will bring back that front porch stoop and all that it stood for. What we do need to do is to re-invent or re-translate the front porch spirit of family and neighborhood pride in contemporary terms, in a livable way for our modern society. We need to encourage first of all, neighbors to communicate with their neighbors. In my rounds on house blessings so far, one thing that comes out strongly is the real horror stories of neighbors who live next to one another and refuse to even talk to each other. Incidents of long ago have contributed to a state of co-existence or cold war on both sides of the back yard fences. Second, why not promote more block parties like so many blocks have each year. Barricade the street, play some music, organize some games, barbecue some food, and invite absolutely everyone to it. Invite the parish priests; maybe have a prayer service or Mass. Talk, play, and pray together. Third, welcome newcomers who move into the neighborhood. Bring over a cake or some cold drinks and introduce yourself; it sounds corny but, you know, it breaks the ice and builds community. Fourth, find out who might need some extra help on the block: food shopping, grass cutting, reading the newspaper for, or just sitting with. Encourage your youngsters and teens to assist in a sense of Christian service (no money accepted, please). Fifth, provide for the safety of the neighborhood. Keep your eyes and ears open for trouble or suspicious activity. Attend police beat meetings to get to know your police officer and what you can do to keep your block safe. Work together and dialogue with neighborhoods to make your block a better place to live. Sixth, promote this spirit in your own home. Meet your children's friends; invite them over for dinner or pizza. Invite their parents over as well. Plan common activities or trips to Great America or baseball games or to the water park. Do creative tournaments or games in your back yard or front lawn to instill healthy competition (bingo games, chess, stick ball, board games). Encourage your children to walk or bike around the neighborhood, instead of always relying on the automobile to get us around town. We need desperately to come out of our shells, out of our homes, we need to network and communicate and realize that we depend on one another. We need to rediscover that it's people that makes the world go round--not computers or television images--real live people communicating, laughing, playing, living together. Our stories of faith and life must be filled with memories not of video games and cable movies but of people and neighborhoods and porch stoops.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Eugene L. Siegel, an outstanding public leader and resident of the third Congressional District in Illinois. Gene Siegel has dedicated 20 years of public service to the community of Chicago Ridge. Mr. Siegel began his political career in 1963 when he was appointed as the deputy coroner for the Cook County Coroner's Office. After serving in that position for 8 years, Gene accepted another appointment as the assistant chief to the Cook County Sheriff's Office. In 1987, he accepted yet another appointment as administrative assistant to the State Treasurer's Office. Mayor Siegel was also a member of the Cook County Criminal Justice Commission for 6 years; one of two mayors in all of Cook County serving in that capacity. He is also a past associate of the Crisis Center for South Suburbia. In 1975, Gene was elected as part-time mayor of Chicago Ridge to fill an unexpired term. He was re-elected in 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, and in 1993, was elected as a full-time mayor. At the present time, Mayor Siegel is serving as vice-chairman of the Southwest Council of Mayors, and is the legislative chairman for the Southwest Conference of Local Government. Also, he is serving as vice-president and a member of the board of directors for the Illinois Municipal League. He is a member of the Midway Airport Task Force and a member of the Cook County advisory board on community development block grant applications. So far, during his tenure as mayor, Mayor Siegel has accomplished a tremendous amount on behalf of the residents of Chicago Ridge. Gene created a solvent tax base by instrumenting the development of the Chicago Ridge Mall in 1981, and the Commons of Chicago Ridge in 1988. These developments allow his administration to hold the line on property owner's taxes and still permit such village improvements as the improvement of Ridgeland Avenue to establish commercial land use and the installation of an adequate water system with a two-million- gallon reservoir and a pumping station. The mayor has worked diligently to make Chicago Ridge a beautiful and safe place to live and raise a family. Under his administration, countless streets have been paved with storm sewers, curbs, gutters, and modern street lighting and traffic signals have been installed at hazardous intersections. Presently, the mayor is working on development projects that include the Industrial Park, a 130 acre parcel of property, and the Chicago Ridge Commons TIF Extension. Mayor Siegel is a dedicated public servant who has worked to build a genuine community feeling in Chicago Ridge. Throughout his 20 years as mayor, Gene has maintained an open door policy for all his constituents and employees. Also, he and his wife have been residents of Chicago Ridge for 39 years. I ask my colleagues to join the residents of Chicago Ridge and myself in expressing our gratitude to Mayor Siegel for his many years of devotion to public service. I look forward to working with Mayor Siegel for many more years to come.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Eugene L. Siegel, an outstanding public leader and resident of the Third Congressional District in Illinois. After 20 years of dedicated public service, Gene Siegel is retiring as mayor of Chicago Ridge, IL. Mr. Siegel began his political career in 1963 when he was appointed as the deputy coroner for the Cook County Coroner's Office. After serving in that position for 8 years, Gene accepted another appointment as the assistant chief to the Cook County Sheriff's Office. In 1987, he accepted yet another appointment as administrative assistant to the State Treasurer's Office. Mayor Siegel was also a member of the Cook County Criminal Justice Commission for 6 years; one of two mayors in all of Cook County serving in that capacity. He is also a past associate of the Crisis Center for South Suburbia. In 1975, Gene was elected as part-time mayor of Chicago Ridge to fill an unexpired term. He was reelected in 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, and in 1993, was elected as a full-time mayor. At the present time, Mayor Siegel is serving as vice chairman of the Southwest Council of Mayors, and is the legislative chairman for the Southwest Conference of Local Government. Also, he is serving as vice president and a member of the board of directors for the Illinois Municipal League. He is a member of the Midway Airport task force and a member of the Cook County Advisory Board on Community Development Block Grant applications. During his tenure as mayor, Mayor Siegel has accomplished a tremendous amount on behalf of the residents of Chicago Ridge. Gene created a solvent tax base by instrumenting the development of the Chicago Ridge Mall in 1981, and the Commons of Chicago Ridge in 1988. These developments allow his administration to hold the line on property owner's taxes and still permit such village improvements as the improvement of Ridgeland Avenue to establish commercial land use and the installation of an adequate water system with a 2-million- gallon reservoir and a pumping station. The mayor has worked diligently to make Chicago Ridge a beautiful and safe place to live and raise a family. Under his administration, countless streets have been paved with storm sewers, gutters, and modern street lighting, and traffic signals have been installed at hazardous intersections. Presently, the mayor is working on development projects that include the industrial park, a 130 acre parcel of property, and the Chicago Ridge Commons TIF extension. Mayor Siegel is a dedicated public servant who has worked to build a genuine community feeling in Chicago Ridge. Throughout his 20 years as mayor, Gene has maintained an open door policy for all his constituents and employees. He will be sorely missed as mayor of Chicago Ridge but I am sure he will remain a prominent member of the community. He and his wife have been residents of Chicago Ridge for 39 years. I ask my colleagues to join the residents of Chicago Ridge and myself in expressing our gratitude to Mayor Siegel for his years of devotion to public service. I wish Mayor Siegel good health in his retirement and, again, I thank him for his devotion to the residents of Chicago Ridge.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues two outstanding individuals from the Third Congressional District of Illinois who have recently completed a major goal in their Scouting careers. On May 21, 1995, Jason Michael Baumann and Bryan Duffy were honored at an Eagle Scout Court of Honor. At that time, I presented each Scout with a flag that was flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of their outstanding achievement. Jason joined Saint Symphorosa Cub Pack 4439 in 1983 and quickly progressed through the ranks while earning the Parvuli Dei and Arrow of Light Awards. Jason then joined Boy Scout Troop 1439 during the end of 1987. He participated in many Scouting activities while working on the requirements for the ranks leading to Eagle. During this time, he earned a total of 24 merit badges. Jason also served as the troop scribe, chaplain's aide, assistant patrol leader, and junior assistant scoutmaster. Jason attended high school at the new Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary. Jason's interests in high school included involvement in the music and drama programs. He also played the organ, piano, keyboard, and timpani for the weekly Masses and was a music appreciation teacher's aid. Upon graduating high school, Jason enrolled at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he is currently majoring in computer science. His future plan is to become a computer programmer. He also currently works for the Archdiocese of Chicago in the development office at Quigley as a computer consultant. Bryan also joined Cub Pack 4439 in 1983 where he earned the Bobcat, Wolf, Bear, Webelo and Arrow of Light Awards. While a Cub Scout, he held the position of assistant den chief. When he joined Boy Scout Troop 1439 in June of 1987 he quickly progressed through the ranks. Bryan held the positions of assistant patrol leader, senior patrol leader, junior assistant scoutmaster, and is a member of the Order of the Arrow, an organization for honored Scouters. During his 4 years at Brother Rice High School, Bryan excelled on the swimming and water polo teams for all 4 years. He was a member of the 1994 Illinois State Championship Water Polo Team and completed in the Illinois State Sectional Championships. 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. Jason and Bryan have clearly demonstrated such abilities through their dedicated community service and deserve special recognition. In light of the commendable leadership and courageous activities performed by such fine young men, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring Jason and Bryan for attaining the highest honor in Scouting--the rank of Eagle Scout. Let us wish them the very best in all of their endeavors.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues an exemplary couple from the Third Congressional District of Illinois, Mr. and [[Page E1189]] Mrs. Edwin Wenta. On Sunday, June 11, 1995, Edwin and Charlotte will celebrate their 50th weeding anniversary with their family and friends at the sky room of the Martinique Restaurant in Evergreen Park. On June 9, 1945, Edwin and Charlotte were married at the San Buena Mission in Ventura, CA. It was near the end of World War II and Ed was on leave from the U.S. Navy. Edwin and Charlotte have two children, son Terry and daughter Diane, and five grandchildren, Lisa, Nick, Deanna, Dierdra, and Gerald. The entire Wenta family joins me in saluting Edwin and Charlotte on this special occasion. The Wentas are a role model of the family strength and integrity that has made America great. Their commitment to each other and their family is impressive and deserving of special recognition and honor. I am sure that my colleagues join me in congratulating Edwin and Charlotte on their many years of love and commitment. May their life together continue to be an adventure and offer them many more pleasant memories.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, this is a time of tough, economic choices. Congress is faced with a $4.7 trillion debt that is depriving our Nation of the investments we need to improve our economic productivity and give our children a stable future. I have long searched for a solution to the problems facing my constituents and the country as a whole. I have listened to the concerns of the hard-working people in my district. They understand that sacrifices have to be made in order to get our financial debt under control. They just want to make sure that it is done in a fair, sensible, common-sense way. This is why I voted for a budget proposal that is tough on the deficit, but makes only the cuts necessary to balance the budget. Unfortunately, the Republicans in the House have proposed a budget that puts off consideration of cuts until after $350 billion in tax cuts are put in place. I want to see those tax cuts become a reality-- but we need to reduce government first. The Senate has put forth a budget that reflects this idea. They agree that it is not good fiscal policy to start giving out tax credits before the budget is balanced. The budget resolution that I support makes many tough choices. It is a new, bold solution to really fix what needs fixing--reigning in government spending. But it does it much more slowly and deliberately than what the Republicans have proposed. It will cut what needs to be cut, but it doesn't go too far, too fast. The budget proposal I voted for makes conservative, but not unreasonable cuts, in funding for programs such as education, health, economic development, and maintains the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. The Republican budget proposal would cause Cook County to lose $90 million in mass transit funds, $6.8 billion in Medicare funding, and $1.5 million in community development grants. I am for balancing the budget. I just do not want to make drastic and unnecessary cuts that will hurt my community, especially its elderly. The Coalition Budget Substitute that I supported makes smart choices about down-sizing the government: It slows the growth of Medicare just enough to keep the Trust Fund solvent. What we need to do in the next several years is lower the projected cost of the Medicare Program, while preserving benefits, quality, choice and affordability. We can do this by aggressively investigating fraud and abuse, and offer incentives to encourage the use of fewer and less expensive services. Medicare growth needs to be controlled, but drastically increasing the premiums of Medicare recipients is not the answer. It turns Medicaid into a block grant and slows the current growth rate of the program. The Coalition Substitute cuts less than the Republican bill--$50 billion less in cuts--but it will significantly reorder Medicaid funding. This program is important to Illinois because 50 percent of the beneficiaries are disabled individuals who are unable to work, and 20 percent are elderly who need assistance with nursing home care costs. The Republican budget's cuts would be so severe, that long-term care for the more vulnerable elderly and disabled would be non-existent. Medicaid needs changing, and the Coalition Budget Substitute can accomplish this change without devastating the elderly and disabled in Illinois. Many health care organizations have come out in support of the Coalition Budget Substitute because they know that our health care system cannot continue to meet the needs of the American people if the broader economy is ill. They support this alternative to the Republican budget proposal because it makes hard choices while still preserving essential safety net programs in Medicare and Medicaid. It incorporates savings from welfare reform that will not give benefits to non-citizens. It is time for this country to put the needs of its hard-working, law-abiding citizens ahead of those who do not contribute to our economy. This bill does gives priority to legal U.S. citizens. It does not cut guaranteed student loans. The Republican budget proposal would start penalizing children while they were still in school. We need to continue educating our children, not take away their ability to improve themselves and our country. It deletes the tax on Federal employees, so people who have contributed all their lives to their pension will not be penalized for doing so. The Republicans included this increase in Federal employees' contributions to pay for tax cuts, but I don't agree with targeting one group of retirees for this purpose. It is not fair, and the budget proposal I voted for would right this wrong. [[Page E1083]] It cuts $11 billion less than the Republicans' bill for child health and immunization, medical research, and other essential health programs. It is important that we recognize that medical research and immunization is crucial to ward off and cure devastating diseases. It makes some cuts, but $6 billion less than the Republicans' bill, in economic development programs, such as job training and Community Development Block Grants [CDBGs]. It saves $4.1 billion from farm programs over 7 years. If partisan feelings were put aside, I believe that Republicans and Democrats could have come together on this common-sense plan to cut government spending and reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, the cuts proposed by the Coalition budget resolution did not pass the House. I suspect that a similar proposal to the one that was voted down today will arise from the conference between the Senate and the House. Many members of the Senate would rather focus on deficit reduction than tax cuts. That just makes sense. Even though this bill was voted down today, this is just the beginning of the process. We still have a chance to fulfill our commitment to our children by reducing the deficit, but continue to keep our contract to our parents.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Richard Alan Yanikoski who will be inaugurated on May 19, 1995, as president of Xavier University located in the Third Congressional District of Illinois. Dr. Yanikoski was selected after a nationwide search conducted by the university's board of Trustees attracted distinguished candidates from all regions of the country. Dr. Yanikoski is the 12th president of the 148-year-old college, the oldest higher education institution in the city of Chicago. Dr. Richard Yanikoski has served in the field of higher education for over 19 years. Previously, Dr. Yanikoski held the position of director of the Harry F. and Elaine M. Chaddick Institute and served as associate professor and director of DePaul University's Public held at DePaul included associate vice president for academic affairs, director of institutional planning and research, evaluation coordinator, instructor and mentor of DePaul's School for New Learning. Dr. Yanikoski's additional professional experience includes his work as research assistant for Chicago's Spencer Foundation, part-time instructor for Loyola University's Program in Higher Education, and mentor for Native American Education Services College of Chicago. A prolific writer, Dr. Yanikoski has published numerous articles in professional journals and is currently preparing his first book, ``Academic Freedom in Higher Education,'' to be published by Greenwood Press. He has been a guest speaker, session leader, and invited panelist for over 30 professional organizations. A variety of higher education, religious, and governmental institutions have sought his expertise as a reviewer and consultant. In addition, Dr. Yanikoski has received numerous awards and distinctions in honor of his dedicated years of service to higher education. For example, Dr. Yanikoski has been recognized by the American Men and Women of Science, Who's Who in the American Education, Who's Who of Emerging Leaders in America, and Who's Who Worldwide. The May 19, inauguration ceremony will be a gala celebration featuring an investiture of the President by James J. McDonough, chairman of the university's board of trustees. As part of the investiture ceremony, Dr. Yanikoski will be presented the university's medallion, a symbol of the office of presidency. The medallion features the seal of the university which is engraved with the Latin motto ``Via Veritas Vita,'' which translates as ``The Way, The Truth, The Life,'' and features a number of elements to represent the Sisters of Mercy, education and religion. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending congratulations to Dr. Richard Alan Yanikoski as he begins his tenure as president of Saint Xavier University. I wish him the best of luck in his endeavors as president. I am confident he will maintain the high academic standards of the university and will undoubtedly add to Saint Xavier's rich tradition of providing quality post-secondary education in a religious atmosphere.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. During the subcommittee markup of H.R. 961, an amendment was adopted which revised the allotment formula for the State revolving fund grants for wastewater treatment facilities. Although putting a 10 percent cap in a hold harmless provision in the bill may seem like a good idea, the change in the formula has a dramatic impact on allotments for 21 States, including Illinois. Let us look a history. Right now allocation is based on needs and population data from the 1970's. Nobody thinks we should keep using this allocation, and until the amendment was adopted in subcommittee, everyone agreed on the allocation that is in my amendment which was based on the most current data, which means the 1990 population figures, the 1990 needs. But it was changed by the subcommittee, and I want to change it back. The reason should be clear. Mr. Chairman, if my amendment does not pass, Illinois, represented by me and 19 other Members of this body, will lose almost $83 million over 5 years. Also, Arizona will lose $50 million; California, $186 million; Connecticut, $4 million; Florida, $3 million; Georgia, $20 million; Indiana, $58 million; Kansas, $737,000; Kentucky, $1\1/2\ million; Louisiana, $850,000; Massachusetts, $78,000; New Jersey, $25,000; New York, $381 million; North Carolina, $74 million; Oregon, $1 million; Pennsylvania, $3.575 million; Tennessee, $1 million; Texas, $4 million; Virginia, $27 million; Washington, $35 million; West Virginia, $1.2 million; American Samoa, $1.2 million; Guam, $875,000. For the 21 affected States we are talking about a total of almost $1 trillion; to be exact, $955 million. But obviously some States benefit from the provision. Alaska gains $37 million; Hawaii, $55 million; Iowa, $77 million; Missouri, $99 million, and Wisconsin is the biggest winner with an increase of more than $127 million. I would not be so bold as to suggest that the 16 Members from Wisconsin vote for this amendment. If they did, they would be voting against $127 million for their own State. The same goes for the Representatives of the 29 States that benefit from this allocation that is presently in the bill. Although I would be more than happy to have their votes, I certainly will not seek them, expect them to vote against the best interests of their State, but, if I and every other Member from a State that losses money under the new allocation votes against this amendment, we will be voting against our State. That does not make any sense to me, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is not complicated. There are winners and losers on the issue. But if every Member votes in the best interest of his or her State, my amendment will pass 299 to 136. I hope that will happen. amendment offered by mr. bateman as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have failed to mention the fact that I think that during the course of the subcommittee markup, full committee markup, and here on the House floor, with a bill that is very controversial, because people have very strong opinions, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, has done an outstanding job. I have said this on other occasions, and I want to say it once again. I would also like to jump back just for a moment to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], because it pains me to be up here opposing him when, as I say, in the last 2 years we worked so diligently on attempting to save the U.S. merchant marine. However, I have to say that the Bateman substitute suffers from the same defects as the ones in the bill. It uses the same outdated population and needs data to apportion SRF money to finance construction of wastewater facilities. The result is a formula that bears no resemblance to the clean water needs we face today. Thus, it will not help us prepare for the environmental challenges we will be facing in the near future. The phase-in period is also problemmatical. It simply means that we have to wait another 4 years to get 20 percent of the adjustment we need to reflect current and future needs. We have waited a long time to update the wastewater SRF formula. We should not have to wait another 4 years to get another 20 percent of the changes in the current data showing that we need it now. For the sake of getting the most efficient allocation of resources, of getting the most bang for our buck, we should defeat the substitute, and we should support the Lipinski amendment. One last time, I simply want to say that if Members are from the following States, and there are 299 Members from the following States, if you are from these States, defeat the Bateman amendment, support the Lipinski amendment, and these States will gain close to $1 trillion: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bateman substitute amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my very good friend, and I mean this sincerely, my very good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], putting forth this amendment. He and I came to Congress together. We were friends then. In the last few years, we worked very closely together on the Merchant Marine Subcommittee. In fact, I doubt seriously there has ever been a majority or minority that worked any closer together. So I am happy that he has brought forth this amendment. I know that he frames it as a compromise, but in all honesty I do not see it as a compromise. It is a minute step in the right direction but only a minute step in the right direction. Let us remember that my amendment simply restores what was in the bill last year, what was in the bill at the beginning of this year, and what was not removed from the bill until the subcommittee markup. At the full committee markup, I attempted to return to the original formula in the bill based upon 1990 population and needs. We lost. We lost on a vote of 30 to 30. Unfortunately the 31st vote in our favor wandered in the door a few minutes after the gavel fell. The next day we attempted to revive it for another vote, but we failed. It was tabled. Mr. Chairman, I have heard people talk about here today that it was defeated in committee. There have been letters sent out saying it was defeated in committee, my amendment. It is true, but I thought I would put it in the proper perspective. Once again I would like to reiterate, there are winners and there are losers. I oppose and I ask you to oppose the Bateman substitute, and I ask you to support the Lipinski amendment, particularly the following States: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. If you do not defeat the Bateman amendment and support the Lipinski amendment, those States will lose close to $800 million.