William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde- Morella amendment that will strike section 201 access to high-density airports from H.R. 1000. I will focus today on the high-density airport of greatest interest to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and myself: Chicago O'Hare International Airport. The high-density rule was issued by the FAA in 1968 as a temporary, I repeat a temporary, measure to reduce delays at congested airports. The high-density rule was never designed for safety purposes. I will run that by once again. The high-density rule was never designed for safety purposes. In fact, on February 11, 1999, Jane Garvey, administrator of the FAA, testified before the Subcommittee on Aviation that there are no safety reasons for the high-density rule. In addition, facility representatives of the air traffic controllers working in O'Hare's tower wrote that the controllers support the elimination of the high-density rule and agree that O'Hare, and I quote, is capable of handling an increase in traffic without adversely affecting safety. Therefore, contrary to what others want us to believe, eliminating the high-density rule will in no way affect air safety. In fact, the FAA has sophisticated air traffic control programs and procedures in place to provide for safety. For example, the FAA's central flow control system limits air traffic to operational safety levels based on the capacity of runways and airports, and it is implemented independently of the limits of the high-density rule. Air traffic controllers will continue to apply these programs and procedures for providing safety, regardless of whether the high-density rule is in place or not. Simply put, the FAA will never put more planes in the air than the system could adequately handle, and eliminating the high-density rule is not going to change that fact. There are no safety reasons for the high-density rule. In addition, the high-density rule is no longer needed for its intended purpose of reducing delays and congestion. In fact, as a result of air traffic control improvements, congestion-related delays at O'Hare have decreased approximately 40 percent over the last decade as operations have increased. Unfortunately, O'Hare cannot fully benefit from all the improvements that enhance capacity and reduce delays. Although O'Hare could easily and efficiently handle an increase in air traffic, it cannot because of the artificial constraints of the high-density rule. In other words, the high-density rule does not reflect the capacity of O'Hare Airport but, rather, unnecessarily limits the capacity of the airport. As for the issue of noise, which I know my colleague from Illinois is very concerned about, the high-density rule does not really serve as a noise mitigation tool. In fact, one effect of the high-density rule has been to increase operations between 6:45 a.m. and after 9:15 p.m., the hours the slot rule is in effect, because aircraft do not need slots to operate at these times. Elimination of the high-density rule will actually reduce noise at night and in the early morning hours because airlines will have more scheduling flexibility to operate during the day. More importantly, in 2002 when the high-density rule is eliminated, only the quieter stage 3 aircraft will be able to serve O'Hare Airport. A 1995 study of the high-density rule by the Department of Transportation found that the removal of the high-density rule at O'Hare, in conjunction with the mandated phase-out of noisier stage 2 aircraft by the year 2000, would shrink the number of people adversely impacted by noise near O'Hare from 112,349 in 1995 to 20,820 in 2005, a net decrease of 91,529. This is also supported by the City of Chicago's projected noise contour for O'Hare in the year 2000. It is clear that there is no real reason to keep the high-density rule in place. However, eliminating the high-density rule will provide immediate and substantial benefits. Today, very few new entrant carriers are able to serve O'Hare because it is extremely costly to either buy a slot or go through the political process of obtaining a slot exemption. Lifting the high-density rule will create new opportunities for new entrant airlines. This will increase competition and lower fares for consumers. Without slots, carriers will also have the scheduling flexibility to serve more destinations. In fact, carriers may be more inclined to serve small- and medium-sized communities because they will no longer have to worry about using their precious few slots on the most profitable routes. Eliminating the high- density rule allows all airlines, big or small, new or old, to serve O'Hare Airport, giving consumers more choice, lower fares, and greater convenience. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde/Morella amendment. The Committee has already conceded to significant changes to Section 201, including delaying the elimination of the high-density rule at Chicago O'Hare to the year 2002. Let O'Hare Airport operate safely and efficiently like every other slot-free airport in the nation by opposing this amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable public servant in my district, Beverly A. Shaughnessy, who is retiring after 35 years of service to the Fourth District Cook County Court. Mrs. Beverly Shaughnessy, the former Beverly Thomas, has been a life- long resident of Berwyn, Illinois. Mrs. Shaughnessy began her career in the Berwyn Health Department. In the early 1950's she moved to Berwyn City Hall as a Court Clerk. When Berwyn and other surrounding communities became a part of the Fourth District, Beverly moved to the District offices in Oak Park. As the Fourth District outgrew its facilities, a new District office was built in Maywood, where Mrs. Shaughnessy has served since its opening. She has progressed from a Circuit Court Clerk to Supervisor of Clerks for the felony division. Many lawyers and judges credit Mrs. Shaughnessy for their knowledge of how the court system functions. Mrs. Shaughnessy became acquainted with Tom Shaughnessy, mayor of the city of Berwyn, and they were married on June 21, 1947. They have two children, Tom Jr. (Mark) and Patte (Kathy) Kennedy, as well as grandchildren Bryan, Kelly, Courtney, Danny, Ashley, Leigha and Jack. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Shaughnessy for her years of dedicated service and extend to her my best wishes in the future.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Railroad Safety and Funding Equity Act of 1999, legislation that I have introduced today along with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer). Also known as RSAFE, this bill will increase funding for a far-too-long-overlooked aspect of highway and railroad safety grade crossings. With record levels of motorists on our Nation's roads and highways and with a record amount of freight being moved by rail, the lack of our nation's commitment to funding safety programs is nearing dangerous levels. RSAFE will bolster our Nation's commitment by almost doubling the current Federal grade crossing improvement program. As two recent train crashes in Illinois showed, one a fatal crash in Bourbonnais and the other in my district in LaGrange, much more can and should be done to upgrade safety at railroad to highway grade crossings. For too long policymakers have accepted it as fact that grade crossings are dangerous, and they have left it at that. RSAFE will take the 4.3 cents per gallon diesel fuel tax that railroads currently pay towards deficit reduction and transfer it into the Department of Transportation Section 130 Grade Crossing Safety program. This money will then be distributed to the States on a formula basis. Based on estimates of railroads' tax receipts, RSAFE will add approximately $125 million or more to the current $150 million in the Section 130 program. Therefore, among other things, RSAFE will give States much more ability to construct gates at grade crossings, develop and acquire new technology that could serve as alternatives to whistle- blowing and generally remove hazards at grade crossings. RSAFE also mandates that 5 percent of the new funding will be spent for education and awareness campaigns, such as Operation Lifesaver. Operation Lifesaver works with local law enforcement officials and others to make pedestrians and motorists aware of the dangers at grade crossings. RSAFE also puts 10 percent of the new funding towards upgrading rail-to-rail crossings. The danger posed when two freight trains collide or when a commuter train collides with a freight train are immeasurable in lives and environmental costs. Since railroad crossing safety is often a local and State issue, RSAFE mandates that the States pay at least a 20 percent share of any project financed with funds under this bill. I think that this is a small price for the States to pay for the safety of their citizens. The railroads often argue that the 4.3 cent per gallon tax is unfair, that they maintain their own infrastructure unlike the trucking industry. But I think it even more unfair that the taxes go to deficit reduction instead of a program that benefits the railroads and public safety. That is what RSAFE does. It puts railroad money back into the railroads for the benefit of the public. In addition, after 5 years of increased investment in grade crossing safety, RSAFE repeals the 4.3-cent diesel tax on October 1, 2004. Hopefully, Congress will continue the higher funding for the Section 130 program in the next highway and transportation reauthorization bill. However, until then, every day that the tax goes towards deficit reduction is a day that statistics tell us someone will die at a railroad crossing. In 1998, 428 people died from an incident at a grade crossing, 30 of whom died in my home State of Illinois. Clearly, 428 deaths in 1 year is unacceptable. So I say to my colleagues and to those in the railroad community: Please work with Congressman Cramer and me to pass this legislation so that each day we will not see another life perish due to our own inactivity and inaction.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant in my district, John A. Oremus. John Oremus has recently retired after serving as mayor of Bridgeview, Illinois for a total of four decades. Mr. Oremus learned the value of a strong work ethic early on, as he helped out with his father's tanning business and held a job at a gas station. In 1948, he started his own business. All of his children and grandchildren are now very involved with the business. Mr. Oremus began his career in politics when he was appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In 1955, John Oremus became the Mayor of the village of Bridgeview. He retained the position until 1963. In 1967, John Oremus was again elected mayor and has held the position ever since. Mr. Oremus continued his hard work as mayor, seeing to it that his vision of ``A Well Balanced Community'' became a reality. This concept was that the Bridgeview community of fine homes and families would have low municipal taxes and many places in town to work and shop. As Mayor, Mr. Oremus also encouraged business and industry by offering cooperation and strong Village support services, such as fire and police protection. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to pay tribute to John Oremus. I am certain that the community of Bridgeview, Illinois will miss his presence as a public servant. It is my hope that John Oremus a enjoys good health and good memories in his retirement.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation entitled the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act. The Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act is a bill that will require congressional review of all U.S. bilateral aviation agreements. International aviation is governed by a series of bilateral civil aviation agreements between nations. This means that if an air carrier from the United States wants to fly into or out of another country, the United States Government must first negotiate with the government of that foreign country to determine the terms under which the carriers from both countries will operate. U.S. bilateral aviation agreements are executive agreements. They are negotiated and signed by representatives from the Department of State and from the Department of Transportation. In fact, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater recently joined representatives from the People's Republic of China in signing a new U.S.-China civil aviation agreement. The new agreement will govern aviation policy between the United States and China for the next 3 years. Unfortunately, like all bilateral aviation agreements, Congress did not play any official role in the review or the approval of this new agreement. As ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, I strongly believe that Congress deserves to play a role in reviewing and approving bilateral aviation agreements. As Members of Congress, we represent the business person, the leisure traveler, the consumer, and the flying public in general. We should have the right to make sure that bilateral aviation agreements are negotiated to give U.S. consumers the most access to international aviation markets at the best prices possible. For example, the new U.S.-China civil aviation agreement increases U.S. access to China by doubling the number of scheduled flights and designating one additional U.S. carrier. However, many industry observers believe that U.S. negotiators should not have settled for anything less than access for two additional U.S. carriers through this very large Chinese market. Therefore, I am introducing the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act, a bill to require congressional review of all U.S. aviation bilateral agreements. International aviation, which is based on bilateral aviation agreements, has a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens. Congress should not be excluded from agreements of such magnitude. Under the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act, the executive branch must submit each new and updated bilateral aviation agreement to Congress. Then a Member of Congress must introduce a disapproval resolution within 20 days after receiving the agreement. If a disapproval resolution is not introduced within 20 days, the bilateral agreement is automatically approved and can be implemented. However, if a disapproval resolution is introduced, Congress then has 90 days to review the bilateral agreement and enact a disapproval resolution if necessary. If a disapproval resolution is not enacted by the end of the 90-day period, the bilateral agreement is then automatically approved and can and will be implemented. As elected representatives of the people, we owe it to the American consumer to look out for his or her best interest. My legislation will help Members of Congress better represent the flying public by giving Congress a vital role in the review and approval of U.S. bilateral agreements. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the 13 Members who have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation, including the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. John Duncan, Jr.) Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I urge all Members of the House to join us in cosponsoring the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Rev. James Haberkost, a dedicated pastor in my district who is celebrating his 40th anniversary of service to the Lutheran Church. Pastor Haberkost is a 1959 graduate of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. That same year he was ordinated and installed as Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church in Streamwood, IL., where his served the congregation for 21 years. In August of 1980, Pastor Haberkost began work at St. John's Lutheran Church in La Grange, IL. While Pastor of Grace Congregation, Pastor Haberkost also found the time to serve as part-time Lutheran Chaplain at the Illinois State Training School for Boys at St. Charles. In addition to his duties as Pastor of St. John's Church, he has served on the Northern Illinois Board for Missions and the Town & Country Committee of the District, and led devotions twice a month on WTAQ in LaGrange, until the radio station was sold. Reverend Haberkost proceeds to serve as the senior Pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church. The church congregation and school both continue to rapidly increase in number and faith. Mr. Speaker, I salute Rev. James Haberkost for his many years of commitment and dedication to the church, school, and community. I extend to him my best wishes for many more years of quality service in his noble vocation.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Thomas J. Doyle, a valuable principal in my district who is retiring. Thomas Doyle is retiring after 42 years of dedicated service to the Chicago Public Schools. Mr. Doyle has been the principal at Byrne Elementary School since September of 1989. He has administered the Chicago Board of Education since 1957, where he started his career at the Graham Elementary School as a physical education teacher. In addition to Mr. Doyle's work with the Chicago Board of Education, he was also an instructor at other educational institutions. He worked summers from 1967 to 1970 at the Pirie School Teacher training Workshops as an instructor for Audio- Visual Techniques. Mr. Doyle worked part time as an instructor for various institutions, including Chicago State University and Daley City College. Mr. Doyle is committed to numerous professional affiliations and activities including serving as a member of the State of Illinois Reading Subgoals Committee, International Reading Association, the State Evaluation Team for the Illinois Office of Education, and the Chicago Area Reading Association (CARA). Mr. Doyle's fairness, generosity, and positive attitude generate a strong respect from his staff and students. Mr. Doyle is attentive to the needs and concerns of the students and parents. As the leader of instructional activities, Mr. Doyle gives student recognition for academic achievement in the classroom. His positive reinforcement has boosted the morale of both the teachers and students of Byrne Elementary School. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Doyle's forty-two years of commitment to our youth is certainly worthy of recognition. I know that the community joins me in thanking Mr. Doyle for his dedication to our children.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a remarkable group of dedicated health professional--the 2.6 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, May 6-12, 1999. I believe that all Americans who have ever been cared for or comforted by a nurse should celebrate National Nurses Week. According to the American Nurses Association, National Nurse Week was first observed October 11-16, 1954, the 100th Anniversary of the founding of modern nursing by Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War. National Nurses Day and Week was eventually moved to May to incorporate Florence Nightingale's birthday, which is May 12th. Using this year's theme ``Nursing: Healing from the Heart,'' 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. Studies show that the higher the ratio of nurse-to-patients in a hospital, the lower the patient death rate. In short, registered nurses provide top- quality, cost-effective health care services for their patients. Mr. Speaker, I salute America's nurses during the week of May 6-12, 1999 and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Porter for organizing a special order on April 21 to commemorate the Armenian genocide and their leadership as co-chairmen of the Congressional Armenian Issues Caucus. I would also like to salute Mr. Bonior and Mr. Radanovich for their vision and initiative in introducing a resolution calling for a collection of all U.S. records relating to the Armenian genocide. On the 84th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I rise today to join my colleagues and the Armenian-American community in honoring the memories of those who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. April 24, 1915 is recognized the world over as the day hundreds of Armenian leaders in Constantinople were rounded up and killed. Thousands more were murdered in public. This began an eight year long killing spree that claimed the lives of over 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children--half of the world's Armenian population at the time. Moreover, 500,000 Armenians were forcibly driven out of their homeland to seek refuge in other nations. By 1923 the Turks successfully eradicated nearly all traces of a 3000 year-old civilization. There were 2.1 million Armenians in Turkey before 1915, now there are only 100,000, and Armenia itself is nearly empty of Armenians. An entire civilization was forced to watch as their world disintegrated around them. We cannot, should not and will not forget this tragic chapter in world history. It is a sad and shameful period. This moment allows us to reflect the dark side of human nature, a side we sometimes are unwilling to acknowledge, but acknowledge we must. If we do not remember, we are condemned to repeat our past mistakes. Mr. Speaker, I stand today with the Armenian-American community to commemorate the memories of the victims of the Armenian genocide in the hopes of such a crime against humanity will never be repeated. The Turks ravaged an entire civilization. We must heed the lessons contained in this sad and shameful period, we must remember, and we must learn never to forget.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I offer the following column written by John Kass in the March 29, 1999 edition of the Chicago Tribune to be entered in the Congressional Record. Freedom Comes at a Great Cost--``Blood and Sins'' If you were downtown Sunday, and if you passed near Halsted Street, you may have seen the Greek Independence Day parade. The Near West Side is far from the Balkans and far from Kosovo, but they were on the minds of everybody there. Those present thought about the present and the past. We Americans come from so many different places. And there are other national day celebrations for the peoples who became free by their own hand and settled here. But my favorite and the only one that counts is July 4, for all of us. That's when we Americans celebrate our independence from Britain, the founding of our own empire, and the strength of the union that was broken and recovered at a cost. On Halsted Street, you would have seen children dressed in old country costumes and men in what look to be white kilts. You might have joked about men in skirts, especially if you don't know what they did long ago. My great grandfathers and my great-great grandfathers dressed like that, in 1821, in their rebellion against the occupying power, the Ottoman Empire. They wanted their freedom after 400 years of occupation by the Turks. They were tired of having to bow and kiss the hand of their conquerors. So they came down from the mountains with their long knives and guns, looking for blood--and they found it. The Turks had spent four centuries in that land, and they considered it their own, with their own villages and towns, living side by side with the Greeks, mostly in peace. But the sultan didn't tolerate freedom. The captured Greek soldiers were impaled on long poles for slow public deaths. Churches were burned, the nuns and priests skinned alive, villages cleansed, leaving only the stones to cry. Matching the pasha's barbarism with their own, the Greeks committed unspeakable atrocities too. The English romantics who had adopted the Hellenic cause, the dilettantes who talked about fair play, were terrified. But war and rebellion isn't about fair play. Once it begins it is about survival by people who are prepared to do anything. To the horror of their Western European supporters, the Greeks were prepared to do anything. They fought the sultan's armies, and they raided Turkish villages, desecrating mosques, killing every man, innocent women and children, the livestock, everything that moved. When they found Turkish soldiers, they did what the Turkish soldiers did to them, until the Turks finally fled. The sins of the Greeks and the Turks were enough to send generations to hell. But finally, 400 years of Ottoman rule ended and part of Greece was free. What we forget when we celebrate these independence days is the blood and the sins. Like I said earlier, my favorite is July 4, for all of us Americans. In America, while we celebrate our ethnicity and diversity, we should never forget that we're Americans first, even if we're hyphenated. We're Americans because we believe in this country and its freedoms, which is why we came here. The only group that didn't have a choice was black Americans. They were liberated from slavery in a bloody Civil War. Appeals to the better angels of our nature didn't free the slaves. What freed the slaves were the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The union was preserved, in part because of the atrocities committed by Sherman's army as he marched through the South, burning everything in his way. Today, we call those tactics terrorism and barbaric and genocidal, but that's what was done to preserve the union. And let's not forget the Indians. In our hyphenated ethnic celebrations, and when we sing the unifying Star Spangled Banner on the 4th, we concentrate on the positive images. The newspaper photo of the little boys, like my own sons, eating souvlaki and waving. Or the tape of the little boys, like my own sons, chewing on an ear of corn in July, waiting for the fireworks. What's forgotten is how unions are preserved and how independence is won--with the massacres of innocents, with children burned in their homes, with women dragged on the ground by the hair and finally dumped into graves It's not a video game and it's not clean. Americans are now finally debating NATO's war against Yugoslavia. We're in it, but many of us don't understand how and why. And we don't want to deal with how it will grow, if we do what must be done to stop further atrocities against the Kosovars now that we're there. We must understand the unspeakable violence, but we can't let that determine our reasons or rush us. So we can't creep our way in, distracted, rudderless, parsing the sentences of our political leaders to guess at what they mean. If we're going to fight, we must fight to win. We already fought to lose once, in Vietnam. But to win there will be a cost. So we better be prepared to pay it. And we better understand it now.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Kenneth Fulton, a remarkable public servant who is retiring after forty years of service to the citizens of Tinley Park, Illinois. The Honorable Kenneth Fulton will be recognized on the evening of April 29th, at an event hosted by the President, Clerk, and Trustees of the Village of Tinley Park. The Honorable Kenneth Fulton's service to the Village of Tinley Park began in 1959, when he was elected Village Trustee. From 1963 to 1965, Kenneth Fulton was appointed Chairman of the Civil Service Commission of the Village of Tinley Park. In 1965, Kenneth Fulton was elected to the office of Village President, where he served until 1969. The Honorable Kenneth Fulton served as Bremen Township Collector from 1969 to 1971. From 1971 to 1999, Kenneth Fulton once again served Tinley Park as Village Trustee. Honorable Kenneth Fulton saw the Village of Tinley Park, Illinois through forty years of growth and prosperity. When Kenneth Fulton began his involvement in Tinley Park, the village population was merely 5,000 citizens. There are currently over 46,000 citizens in Tinley Park. The Honorable Kenneth Fulton has been associated with a number of accomplishments during his years of service. These accomplishments include the first Cable TV contract for the Village and the region and the development of the concept of life safety assistance through the establishment of defibrillator equipment to be placed in all Police and Fire Department vehicles. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to pay tribute to Kenneth Fulton. I am certain that the community of Tinley Park, Illinois will miss his presence as a public servant. It is my hope that Kenneth Fulton enjoys good health and good memories in his retirement.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I want to first express how proud and honored I am of our brave men and women in the armed services. I salute them and offer them my unequivocal support for the wonderful job they are doing. Mr. Speaker, I was opposed to this operation from the beginning. Putting American troops in the middle of an ethnically charged civil war carrying six hundred years of cultural baggage is pure folly. Neither the Albanians nor the Serbs are interested in any sort of serious compromise. As I said two months ago and I say today, I do not believe that we should risk the lives of our American men and women in an ethnic conflict thousands of miles away where there are no American interests at stake. This is an issue that should have been handled by the European nations, but it wasn't. We should not send American men and women thousands of miles from home to do what European men and women should be doing for themselves. But now that we are embroiled in this foreign policy failure, now is not the time to disengage because to do so would be a blow to U.S. prestige and a license for Milosevic to continue his heinous actions. With this in mind, today we will debate and vote on four separate bills dealing with Kosovo, and I would like to take this opportunity to outline my thoughts on each of them. First, I support H.R. 1569. The bill would prohibit the Department of Defense from using appropriated funds for the deployment of ground elements of American troops in Yugoslavia unless authorized by Congress. Our nation's first President, George Washington, said over 200 years ago: ``The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have been deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'' George Washington's statement is as true today as it was 200 years ago. As duly elected Members of Congress and as representatives of the American people, it is our duty, and yes, it is our responsibility to exercise our constitutional right to authorize military deployments of this nature. As Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal writes: ``Compliance with the Constitution should not be optional.'' Congress should not relax our role as an equal partner with the Administration in this decision-making process. We must not allow ``compliance with the Constitution'' to devolve into an option. We must assert our constitutional prerogatives, which is why I support H.R. 1569. Secondly, I oppose H. Con. Res. 82 and H.J. Res. 44, H. Con. Res. 82 would direct the President to remove American troops from their positions and cease military operations against Yugoslavia within 30 days of passage, and H.J. Res. 44 would declare war on Yugoslavia. While I certainly respect the gentleman from California's (Mr. Campbell) keen intellect, I do not agree with the goals of either of his bills. H. Con. Res. 82 would send a harmful message to our American troops already there. It would undermine their efforts and our support for American men and women in the armed services. H.J. Res. 44 would just go too far. The final bill to be considered on this floor today will be S. Con. Res. 21. This resolution would authorize the President to continue to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with NATO against Yugoslavia. I oppose this resolution, but this does not mean that I want to stop the bombings. Specifically, I do not support the current policy behind the bombings. The five week long bombing campaign against Yugoslavia has been an abject failure. NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark, admitted as much at a news briefing yesterday. The bombs have so far failed to stop the ethnic cleansing, failed to stop the buildup of Serb troops, and failed to break Slobodan Milosevic's resolve. I would support the bombing if it were effective. I would support it if military professionals could carry out their mission unfettered by political persons with little or no military experience. There is no place for armchair generals here, only military professionals. Perhaps it was doomed to fail from the start. There were questions that should have been answered for a military campaign of this nature such as what are the rules of engagement? How will we handle the massive exodus of Albanian refugees? What is the exit strategy? What are the goals? What will we do if air strikes prove to be ineffective? Perhaps a political determination was made over the objections of the Pentagon--a decision to gamble and hope that Milosevic would cave in after a few days of air strikes. Unfortunately, the gamble failed, and no contingencies were planned. And now, the Administration's reactionary foreign policy has resulted in another situation. Mr. Speaker, I am certain we will continue to debate this matter in the months to come, and so I conclude my statement with one final thought for my colleagues and for the Administration. It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win. We must recognize the fact that it's not tidy, and it's not clean, but if we're going to fight, we must fight to win.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in introducing the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act of 1999. This legislation will require congressional approval of all U.S. aviation bilateral agreements. U.S. international aviation policy is determined by a series of bilateral aviation agreements. U.S. bilateral aviation agreements are executive agreements that are negotiated and signed by representatives from the Department of State and the Department of Transportation. Congress does not play any official role in the approval of these agreements. On April 9, 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater joined representatives from the People's Republic of China's aviation committee and agreed to a bilateral agreement between the United States and China. The dual agreement will govern aviation policy between the U.S. and China for the next 3 years. The new agreement allows for a doubling of scheduled flights between the two countries over the next 3 years. This increases the number of flights from 27 per week for each country's carriers to 54 per week in the year 2001. The new agreement also allows an additional carrier from each country to be designated to serve the U.S.-China market in the year 2001. Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, and Federal Express are the current U.S. carriers designated to serve the Chinese market. American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Parcel Service and Polar Air Cargo have all expressed strong interest in serving the U.S.-China market and will no doubt compete vigorously to win the one additional carrier designation in 2001. The new U.S.-China aviation agreement also expands both direct and co-share service to more cities in both nations. The new aviation agreement was agreed to after 18 months of long negotiations between the United States and the Chinese civil aviation authorities. The agreement was signed at the same time that China's Prime Minister was visiting the United States. Many in the airline industry have praised the new agreement for expanding opportunities in the U.S.-China market. However, other industry members feel that the United States settled for too little too quickly. For example, United Parcel Service closely followed the negotiations and was particularly disappointed in the outcome. The large U.S.-China market could easily accommodate additional carriers. In fact, even today, roughly 60 percent of the cargo that is transported between the U.S. and China is carried on third-country carriers, such as Korean and Singapore carriers. At first, U.S. negotiators held firm to the position that at least two new additional U.S. carriers should be added to the U.S.-China market. However, unfortunately, the final agreement only allows for one additional carrier in the year 2001. Therefore, all U.S. carriers, both passenger and cargo, must compete for the single designation. United Parcel is not optimistic that it will win this designation because of the historical preference given to passenger carriers in such cases. Therefore, according to United Parcel Service, a new U.S. cargo carrier will not enter the U.S.-China market under the new agreement. This means that foreign cargo carriers will continue to benefit from the market at the expense of U.S. carriers and the U.S. economy. I want to make it perfectly clear, however, I am not here today to criticize the new U.S.-China aviation agreement. Rather, I am here to point out that this agreement spells out how U.S. carriers will operate and compete in China for the next 3 years. China is the largest market in the world. It holds great trading potential for the United States. Yet the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate did not play any official role in approving this agreement. For this reason, I am once again introducing the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act which will require congressional approval of all U.S. bilateral aviation agreements. Aviation agreements have tremendous long-term impacts on U.S. carriers, U.S. cities, U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy. In effect, these agreements are trade agreements that determine the amount of access the U.S. will have to particular foreign markets. Congress should not be excluded from agreements of such magnitude. As Members of Congress, we represent those who will hopefully benefit from new aviation agreements--the businessman, the pleasure traveler, the consumer, and the flying public in general. Therefore, we should have the right to make sure that bilateral aviation agreements are negotiated to give U.S. consumers the most access to foreign markets, as the best price. I once again urge my colleagues to join me in introducing the Aviation Bilateral Accountability Act.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to bring an important trade issue to the attention of my colleagues. Within the past 2 years, Boeing's share of the aircraft market has fallen from 70 percent to 50 percent. Boeing is losing market shares to Airbus, the European aircraft manufacturer. Airbus was created in the early 1970s for the sole purpose of maintaining and fostering a European role in the production of large commercial jet aircraft. It is a combination of the major aerospace companies of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. Airbus, which is 60 percent owned by private companies, is not the property of the four European nations. However, it is still hard to view Airbus as a private business just like any other business. First of all, Airbus does not operate as a public corporation but, rather, it has special legal status under French law. This special status allows member companies to pool resources without having to disclose specifics about their combined financial activities. Therefore, Airbus remains a financial mystery. Also, France still has not completed the privatization of its aerospace firm, Aerospatiale. Given France's long history of substantial support to Aerospatiale, it is hard to believe that the French government will give up complete control of the company any time soon. Perhaps most importantly, the European Commission has the ability to save Airbus from bankruptcy if the need ever arises. Therefore, Airbus, due to its government backing, is a company that cannot fail. This gives Airbus a tremendous advantage because it has the luxury of making its business decisions with very little risk compared to Boeing, which must defend its business decisions to questioning stockholders, not supportive government officials. Airbus contends that it has earned its increased market share against Boeing by simply building the type of aircraft the airline industry wants to buy. It is important to note, however, that Airbus' success was achieved with significant governmental assistance. Because Airbus does not publish financial statements, it is difficult to know exactly how much government support it has received over the course of the years. However, it is known that the largest amount of financial support was provided in the 1980s when Airbus launched major development programs for new aircraft such as the A-320, the A-330 and the A-340. Therefore, Airbus was able to make new and different types of aircraft which helped attract new customers only because of increased, direct governmental aid. Although most of the government aid was in the form of repayable loans, it was still a subsidy because it would have cost Airbus much more to raise money on the private market. It would be nearly impossible for a private company to obtain aircraft development funds at a government borrowing rate. It is true that Airbus must repay the government aid with interest, but only as aircraft are sold. Therefore, there is no risk for Airbus when it develops new products, because if customers do not buy their new product, Airbus does not have to repay the loans. Again, Airbus, due to its government backing, is a company that cannot fail. It is no wonder that Boeing continues to lose market shares to Airbus. Airbus enjoys a tremendous competitive advantage because of the substantial and direct government aid it receives from four European nations. Airbus is no longer a young company trying to enter the aircraft market. It is number two in the market and gaining on Boeing each and every day, yet Airbus still relies on substantial government support. This is not right. We should not sit idly by as Boeing continues to lose out simply because it does not enjoy the same protectionist treatment as Airbus.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to say a few words about medical savings accounts. Unfortunately, medical savings accounts have fallen victim to partisan political posturing. That is unfortunate because MSAs will insure the uninsured, allow for choice of a doctor, and put the health care decisions in the hands of the individual, not a managed care administrator. Six years ago, along with a dozen of my Democratic colleagues, I cosponsored legislation to create medical savings accounts. In fact, Democrats were the initial sponsors of MSAs, and MSAs unanimously passed the House Committee on Ways and Means in 1994 during the debate on the Clinton health care plan. However, after the Republicans took over Congress, MSAs became a partisan football that was used to polarize the House of Representatives. But I want to make medical savings accounts a bipartisan issue once again. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have introduced H.R. 614, the Medical Savings Account Efficiency Act of 1999. This bill repeals the 750,000-person cap that was placed on MSAs by the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Act and it makes medical savings accounts permanent, thereby repealing the year 2000 sunset of MSAs. Repealing the 750,000 cap is significant in that many insurers have been reluctant to offer MSAs because these restrictions limited the size of the market in which MSAs could be offered. Therefore, insurers will mass market MSAs and make millions of Americans aware of the benefits of medical savings accounts. By opening up MSAs to all Americans, MSAs would encourage savings for health care. By forcing doctors and hospitals to compete for patients who are concerned about quality and cost, health care spending will slow down. Likewise, MSAs will provide a real incentive to shop around for the best values and alternatives when nonemergency treatment is needed. The incentive? Consumers will keep the money they save. Critics of MSAs claim that this incentive will lead healthy people to choose MSAs, leaving sick people in a separate and therefore more expensive health insurance pool. But while many healthy people will choose to save the money, the sick will also choose MSAs because their out-of-pocket cost will be less. In addition, MSAs are not just for the wealthy. A GAO study found that one-third of all new MSAs are opened by previously uninsured individuals. These are additional reasons that MSAs are good for the consumer. Medical savings accounts will reduce administrative overhead, as small bills will be settled and paid directly between provider and consumer. They will also increase the record low savings rates of Americans. Lastly, MSAs provide an incentive to stay healthy. Preventive medicine will be encouraged. These are the reasons I supported MSAs back in 1994 when I first heard about them, and these are the reasons I support medical savings accounts today. So I say to my colleagues, as we wade into health care reform in the 106th Congress, include medical savings accounts in any health insurance measure that will come out of this Congress because medical savings accounts will cut cost, provide choice, promote healthy lives, and save money for the consumer. Mr. Speaker, that is the epitome of reform.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and recognize an outstanding citizen from Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Richard Carlson will be retiring from his distinguished career with the Chicago District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers later this month. He is a Chicago institution in the water resources field and will be retiring after a significant 36-year career with the Corps in the planning and management of civil works projects. Rich began his career with the Corps after graduating from the University of Illinois in 1963, where he worked his way through the ranks to become Chief of the Planning Division. Since 1988, Rich has held the position of Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project Management. During his tenure, Rich was instrumental in the development of the reservoirs for the award-winning Chicago Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) which is authorized for over $600 million in flood control reservoirs. The construction of these reservoirs will reduce flooding to over 500,000 homeowners and will improve the water quality of the Chicago area rivers and streams. Rich was also instrumental in the development, authorization and recent approval of the Chicago Shoreline Project. This project, which Rich helped formulate, will allow for a partnership with the Corps and the City of Chicago for construction of a $270 million shoreline restoration project protecting Chicago's lakefront from collapse and loss of many millions of dollars in public lands and infrastructure. Throughout his career, Rich has received many awards and distinguished recognition for this unique design efforts, including the prestigious Society of American Engineers Goethals Award for engineering design and methods in 1996. The O'Hare Reservoir, dedicated in 1998, which Rich was also instrumental in, received the Illinois Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers design award in 1998. Rich Carson has been a tremendous leader in his field and mentor to the scores of engineers who have been privileged to work with him. He leaves a tremendous legacy for excellence and advocacy for partnership between the federal and local governments that will live on at the Corps of Chicago District for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to join in honoring this excellent public servant, Rich Carlson, and to the wonderful example he has set for others.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about education savings accounts, also known as education IRAs. These ESAs are the wave of the future, as they will give families the tools to help their children receive a quality education. I am very proud to be a lead cosponsor of H.R. 7, the Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1999. Current law allows only parents to put away $500 a year in an ESA. It does not permit funds in that account to be used for K through 12 education. H.R. 7 allows families to put up to $2,000 a year into an education savings account to be used for tuition or school expenses for K through 12 and higher education. As a parent, I know how hard it is to save money to send children to private school or to pay for books and supplies. As a congressman, I hear daily how hard it is for my constituents to keep up with the rising cost of educating their children. This legislation would give parents the tools to help their children succeed in school by allowing them to put away money in a tax-free account to help defray expensive education costs. Mr. Speaker, I am a big proponent of choice. This bill gives parents the choice to send their children to the best school possible, public or private. It also offers them the choice of buying computer equipment or getting access to the Internet. I know that opponents of this measure say that we are leaving poor students behind in bad schools. This is completely and absolutely wrong. I and other cosponsors of this bill support public school education, and do not want to take money away from them. This bill encourages families to use education savings accounts to supplement a student's public education by paying for a high-cost item such as computer equipment. In fact, studies have shown that 75 percent of all families using these accounts will use them to support children in public schools. That is why parents of all backgrounds support education savings accounts, because it will give students the tools they need to excel in the 21st century. In my hometown of Chicago, the Catholic Archdiocese has an unparalleled record of educating students of all racial and economic backgrounds. However, the Archdiocese faces serious economic challenges, and Cardinal George of Chicago supports this measure because it will allow the Archdiocese to continue to play its part in teaching the youth of Chicago. He has worked closely with Mayor Daley, because both of them know that Chicago's public schools cannot educate the children of Chicago by themselves, and it must be a collective group effort. Mayor Daley in turn also supports education savings accounts, because he knows it will help students get a good education. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to cosponsor H.R. 7 so we can give current and future generations of schoolchildren the tools to be the brightest in the 21st century.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the time, and I rise in support of this rule and also in support of this resolution. In the last 12 months 10,000 American steelworkers have found out firsthand that fair trade is not fair and free trade is not free. The cost of those 10,000 American workers was more than their jobs. It was the loss of a lifestyle, a loss of the retirement savings, a loss of a promising future, and for some the cost was a lose of their home and even their family. Mr. Speaker, it has not stopped yet. Thousands of more jobs will be lost if we do not act now. Ten thousand, and still counting, steelworkers have lost their jobs, not because of fair competition, but because of unfair competition. Employers and employees worked and sacrificed together to modernize the American steel industry, making it once again the most efficient steel industry in the world. They are willing to compete fairly, but they do not have a chance unless their government once again makes the playing field level. Foreign countries facing recessions and owing interest on American loans have targeted America as a place to raise hard cash. Countries where it takes $400 to make a ton of steel are dumping it here in record amounts for $200 a ton. Stopping that is not protectionism. It is ending an illegal business practice, one we would not allow one American company to do to another. Mr. Speaker, if this administration will not show the same compassion for American workers as they do for the economies of Japan, Korea and Russia, they would stop this dumping now. They already have that power. I am troubled that we need to legislate an end to the dumping because legislation takes time, and time is something the American steel industry and its workers are running out of. The world tried this once before, and the greatest free trader of all, Ronald Reagan, put a stop to it. Now they are trying it again, and because this administration is more concerned about the world's economy, it is letting them do it. Mr. Speaker, this administration will not stop this, so it is up to us. Let us act quickly. This Administration cannot continue to hide behind ``overall'' rosy economic statistics while dismissing certain sectors of the economy as having troubles. Not when it already has the power to help those certain sectors--like the steel industry. Yes, people are being hired in record numbers. But, for what kind of jobs? Too often, people are being hired at a Wal-Mart so then they have the money to eat at McDonald's--who in turn hire people to serve those Wal-Mart employees--allowing these new McDonald workers to take their salary and spend it at Wal-Mart--who can then hire more low wage employees. We should not even talk about the low wage jobs being created at Wal- Mart and McDonalds, but we should speak loudly and forcefully about the good high paying, benefit rich jobs these people had before they were laid off. A 20-dollar an hour jobs with benefits at a steel mill cannot be replaced by a 6-dollar job at Wal-Mart. But that's what's happening. And don't tell me about the average income of an American worker, when included in that average is a 100 million dollar severance pay to a Hollywood insider, a 20 million dollar bonus for a corporate executive who's rewarded for chopping down his workforce, and a 70 million dollar contract to a professional athlete. Ten thousand, and still counting, steel workers have lost their jobs, not because of fair competition but because of unfair competition. Employers and employees worked and sacrificed together to modernize the American steel industry--making it once again the most efficient steel industry in the world. They are willing to compete fairly but they do not have a chance unless their Government once again makes the playing field level. Foreign countries facings recessions and owning interest on American loans have targeted America as a place to raise hard cash. Countries where it takes 400 dollars to make a ton of steel are dumping it here in record amounts for 200 dollars a ton. Stopping that isn't protectionism--it's ending an illegal business practice--one we wouldn't allow one American company to do to another. If this Administration would show the same compassion for American steelworkers as they do for the economies of Japan, Korea, and Russia, they would stop this dumping now. They already have the power. I'm troubled that we need to legislate an end to this dumping because legislation takes time, and time is something the American steel industry and its workers are running out of. The world tried this once before, and the greatest free trader of all--Ronald Reagan--took his eyes off the balance sheets and focused them on the American families and he said that's wrong and put a stop to it. Now, they're trying it again and because this Administration is more concerned about the world's economy, it's letting them do it. But what if that's not enough? If they're willing to let the steel industry be undercut by foreign competitors acting illegally, what other industries will they allow the same thing to be done to? The Administration won't stop this--so it is up to us. Let's do it quickly.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 42, a concurrent resolution regarding the use of U.S. Armed Forces as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation implementing a Kosovo peace agreement. Let me first say that I am a strong supporter of the brave and hard- working men and women of our armed services. I salute them for all they have done for our great nation, and I am extremely proud of them. However, this is an initiative that NATO was never intended to undertake. As Henry Kissinger said at a House International Relations Committee hearing, this would be an ``unprecedented extension of NATO's authority.'' More importantly, I believe that inserting our troops in the middle of an ethnically charged civil war is very dangerous. Neither the Albanians nor the Serbs are interested in any sort of compromise. The Albanians want only independence and the Serbs, who view Kosovo as the cradle of the Serbian civilization, are unwilling to give up their ancestral homeland. If neither side is interested in working out a peaceful agreement, the introduction of American troops into the conflict will probably inflame anti-American sentiments and Albanian nationalism with disastrous results. They don't want our help and don't want to work towards peace. I do not believe that we should risk the lives of our troops for intangible goals that have no basis in reality. Now, I certainly do not advocate the actions of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. There is a compelling body of evidence to believe that Milosevic is guilty of crimes against humanity and other war crimes, and I am deeply concerned about this affront to human rights. This chamber has voted to support the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in its efforts to bring Milosevic to justice. However, without a well thought out plan on how we should utilize our troops, I cannot support this action. Mr. Chairman, look at the other conflicts we have gotten involved with. Somalia was a disaster. Iraq continues in its defiance. American troops are still inextricably entangled in Bosnia. Haiti dissolved its democracy and now has an authoritarian regime. The track record for this Administration is not good. The Administration has not explained how dragging American troops into another ethnic conflict will protect American interests, and until that is done in a satisfactory fashion, I cannot and will not support the Administration's attempts to put American troops in harm's way. Mr. Chairman, we are not the emergency 911 number for the world, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 603, a bill to clarify the application of the Death on the High Seas Act. An identical bill overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last Congress. Unfortunately, the full Senate did not consider the bill before the end of Congress. H.R. 603 addresses a gross inequity which was brought to our attention by the family members of the victims of TWA flight 800, which is created when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation accidents. If a plane crashes into the ocean more than 3 miles from land, as did TWA flight 800, the Death on the High Seas Act applies. This act denies families the ability to win noneconomic damages in a lawsuit. This means that a family member could not be compensated, for example, for the loss of companionship of a loved one; parents could not be compensated for the loss of their teenaged sons and daughters; sons and daughters could not be compensated for the loss of their elderly parents. However, if a plane crashed on land, State tort law or the Warsaw Convention would apply. Both permit the award of noneconomic damages. The effect of applying the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation accidents is to treat families differently depending on whether the loved ones die in an aircraft that crashed into the ocean or one that crashed on land. This is obviously unfair. The value of an individual's life does not change depending on where the plane happens to come down. H.R. 603 would correct this critical flaw of the Death on the High Seas Act. First, the bill simply adds the bill to the list of shipping laws that do not apply to aviation. Secondly, the bill makes this change applicable to all cases still pending in the lower courts, which includes the family members of the victims of TWA flight 800. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a simple piece of legislation that will fix the harmful inequity that results when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation disasters. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I have any other speakers, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say in conclusion that this is a very important piece of legislation. I agree that it should be passed overwhelmingly. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the Democratic and Republican staff for their outstanding cooperation and work on behalf of this bill. Everyone has worked very diligently to bring this bill to the floor as early as possible in this session of Congress so that we could give the other body ample and sufficient time to pass it. Because, as it has been stated here, it is definitely the right thing to do, the fair thing to do, the equitable thing to do. So, please, everyone vote on behalf of this bill.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me the time. I want to compliment him on this piece of legislation. My only regret in regards to it is that I did not think of it first. I salute him. I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for moving this bill so quickly through the subcommittee and the full committee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very, very strong support of H.R. 661, a bill that will prohibit the operation of the Concorde in the United States. This bill is in direct response to a proposed European regulation which would effectively ban most U.S.-based Stage 3 hushkitted and reengined aircraft from operation in the European Union. The European resolution banning hushkits is supposedly based on noise-related environmental concerns. However, there is no environmental analysis that supports the hushkit ban. In fact, some of the aircraft that will be banned under the regulation are quieter than some of those that will still be flying into European airports. The European regulation banning hushkitted and reengined aircraft is not an environmental regulation. Instead, it is an unfair trade action disguised as an environmental regulation. The regulation proposed by the European Parliament is specifically targeted against U.S. products, such as Boeing aircraft, Pratt & Whitney engines, and hushkits, which are only manufactured in the United States of America. There is no doubt that this regulation is designed to discriminate against U.S. aircraft and aircraft manufacturers. The economic effect of this proposed regulation will be immediate and severe. The U.S. aviation industry is already suffering at the hands of the Europeans. Within the past 2 years, Boeing's market share has fallen from 70 percent to 50 percent. Boeing is losing out to Airbus, which is still subsidized by four European countries that own it, because Boeing does not receive the same protectionist treatment that is given to Airbus. We cannot allow the Europeans to use the environment as a false excuse to attack U.S. aviation and aviation companies. Therefore, if this proposed regulation banning hushkitted and reengined aircraft is implemented, we must reciprocate by banning the operation of the Concorde, which is the pride of European aviation. H.R. 661 sends a strong message to our counterparts in Europe that we are serious about this issue. We cannot afford to let Europe use unfair trade methods to protect and promote their own aviation industry at the expense of U.S. companies. Boeing cannot afford to lose any more market share. In fact, no U.S. company can afford to lose business because of unfair trade regulations. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 661. This bill will ban the operation of the Concorde in the United States if and only if the European Union implements the regulation banning hushkitted and reengined aircraft. We must act quickly to let the Europeans know we are serious about protecting U.S. environmental interests from unfair trade actions, even if they are disguised as environmental protections.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues, twenty-seven outstanding young individuals from the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois, who have completed a major goal in their scouting career. The following young men of the 3rd Congressional District of Illinois have earned the high rank of Eagle Scout in the past months: Christopher Jesionowski, Gerald Reid, Jr., Charles R. Dattilo, David W. Kurzawski, Kenneth R. Cechura, Matthew J. Tiffy, Carl Marcanti, Adam Ramm, Daniel David Grabacki, Brian T. Meyer, James Joseph Pesavento, Andrew Paul Marhoul, Corey G. Zadlo, Joshua S. Anderson, Jacob P. Anderson, William (Bill) Skobutt, Gregory Prawdzik, Mark Tatara, Jason M. Wolff, Richard J. Michals, Matthew A. Hemchausky, Tomasz Sokolowski, William F. Urso, Eric Michael Dusik, Paul Mervine, Prenston Gale, and Keith Klikas. These young men have demonstrated their commitment to their communities, and have perpetuated the principles of scouting. It is important to note that less than two percent of all young men in America attain the rank of Eagle Scout. This high honor can only be earned by those scouts demonstrating extraordinary leadership abilities. In light of the commendable leadership and courageous activities performed by these fine young men, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the above scouts for attaining the highest honor in Scouting-- the Rank of Eagle. Let us wish them the very best in all of their future endeavors.