HomeMy WebLinkAbout980726.tiff JOEL HEFLEY
COLORADO COMMITTEES
FIFTH DISTRICT NATIONAL SECURITY
SMALL BUSINESS
RESOURCES
Congress of tlje Initeb &tates
gouge of tepretentatibes
March 30, 1998
_g
r
Ms. Barbara J. Kirkmeyer �' C) ,
Chair
n J 7)
Weld County Board of Commissioners
:�
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
L7
Dear Ms. Kirkmeyer:
I know you are concerned about excessive aircraft noise
being created by Denver International Airport and its effect on
you and your neighbors.
As you know, I have been active for three years in trying to
get Denver to take responsibility for the noise problem and do
something to resolve it. I wanted to update you on the status of
my efforts on your behalf.
I have enclosed for you copies of three testimonies over
the last few weeks regarding the DIA noise problem, the sixth
runway, and the noise study which was recently completed. The
first copy is my testimony to the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee. It is that committee that has enacted the ban on
the sixth runway. As you will read, I have once again stated to
the Committee, "No sixth runway until the noise problem is
solved." I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will
continue the ban for us again this year.
The next two testimonies are from myself and Mayor Webb's
Chief of Staff, Stephanie Foote, to the Aviation Subcommittee of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Federal
Aviation Administration is being reauthorized this year, and it
will go through this committee. The FAA was reauthorized during
the 104th Congress as well, and it was on the Senate floor in the
waning moments of the 104th Congress, that sixth runway
supporters nearly succeeded in inserting language to lift the ban
onto the FAA legislation.
This year, with Denver using the study results to their
advantage, preventing the ban from being lifted will be even more
Ne�Ji difficult. But I will continue to fight for the sixth runway ban
IL until such time as noise mitigation procedures are in place and
\12\‘ working. The noise study suggested there were steps that could
be taken to mitigate the noise. We need to convince Denver and
the FAA to consider the data and implement some new solutions to
WASHINGTON OFFICE: COLORADO SPRINGS OFFICE: /�'j//�_ �� ENGLEWOOD OFFICE:
2230 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 104 SOUTH CASCADE,SUITE 105 �`� ���•••///��' 111 R059 SOUTH QUEBEC,SUITE 103
WASHINGTON,DC 20515 COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80903 NGLEWOOD,CO 80111
(202)225-4422 1719)520-0055 980726 103)843-0401
what has become an old problem.
It took Denver two and one-half years, but they have come to
the table to talk. Now we need them to take action. If the ban
is lifted now, they will have no incentive to do anything in the
future but continue to talk.
=rely
1 ey
Membe o1 Congress
JH:hs
9 V7;7‘67
JOEL HEFLEY
COLOR,'HEFLEY
COMMITTEES
RE H DISTRICT NATIONAL SECURITY
SMALL BUSINESS
RESOURCES
w
Congress' of tlye aniteb Mates'
Rouge of Aepreoeutatibeg
•
Testimony for the Record
Submitted by Congressman Joel Hefley
To the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee
For the Hearing Held on February 3, 1998
I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony before the Committee regarding an
important issue to me and many of my constituents. As you know, this Subcommittee has placed
a ban on any federal money being used to build a sixth runway at Denver International Airport.
Each year, I have encouraged this Committee to maintain the ban. My issue is not with whether
a sixth runway is needed at DIA for capacity reasons, although I am convinced that it is not
needed. My objection to the sixth runway, and the reason this ban in place, is to force the City
of Denver to take responsibility for the noise problems around DIA and do something to lessen
those problems.
Two years ago, I told this Committee that it was unconscionable that Denver would hold
no regard for the people and communities that surround the new airport. Most of these homes
were already there when the airport opened. Many of the communities, like those in Douglas
County that I represent, are mainly rural, with typically low ambient noise levels. DIA changed
that for thousands of Colorado residents, and it infuriated them when they were told by Denver
officials that they did not have a noise problem. I urged a ban on the sixth runway as a way to
force Denver to acknowledge a noise problem they refused to take responsibility for, and then to
do something about it.
Last year, Denver began to acknowledge the noise problem. We began working with
Denver on ways that they could get their sixth runway, and the people around the airport could
get some relief from the noise. However, I wanted Denver to lessen the noise before the ban was
lifted, and Denver disagreed, wanting the ban lifted first. In exchange, the noise problem would
be studied. I disagreed and the ban was extended another year.
Late last year, Denver finally stepped forward, contributing $200,000 to help fund an
independent analyst to study the noise problem around DIA. Most of the counties around the
airport participated in the study group and each contributed to the cost of the analyst. While I
was hopeful that the study would suggest some viable solutions, I chose not to be formally
associated with the study group because I feared that Denver would use the document to get a
sixth runway without first solving the noise problem.
•
45HINGTON OFFICE: COLORADO SPRINGS OFFICE:
ENGLEWOOD OFFICE:
104
30 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 6059SOUTH CASCADE,SUITE 105 6059 So UTR QUEBEC,SUITE 103
>SHINGTON,DC 20515 COLORADO SPRINGS.CO 80903
121 225-4422 (719)520-0055 ENGLEWOOD,CO 60117
1303)843-0407 q/„7 /
The results of the study are in, and my reaction, as well as the people's reactions, are
mixed. The study does suggest that there are solutions. It suggests that airport operations could
be changed so as to reduce the noise levels for virtually all the effected communities. It also
states the sixth runway will neither increase nor decrease the amount of noise the aircraft
generate in the surrounding communities.
I am disturbed that some people have said that the purpose of the study was to determine
the effect a sixth runway would have on the noise problem. Now that it has been determined the
sixth runway won't increase noise levels, they want the ban removed. As someone who was first
involved in the formation of the study concept, I must say that the purpose was to find a solution
to the noise problem, not to create a document which would be used to provide justification for
lifting the ban. Again, let me state that I have no opinion on whether a sixth runway is needed at
DIA, but I must continue to hold by my previous statement, "No sixth runway until the noise
problem is solved." No solutions have been impleipented, so therefore we must maintain the
ban or some form of it.
When I demand that the noise problem be solved, I do not expect the airport to go away,
and I don't expect the noise to go away. All I want is for each community to have their noise
lessened, even if it is just a little bit. And in that process, I don't want anybody's noise
increased. The Wyle Laboratories study suggests this is possible. I will be working with the
FAA, and I hope Denver will too, in hopes that the data in the new report can be used by the
FAA to find new solutions to what is now an old problem. The Committee language in last
year's appropriation bill, stating that the FAA can expend funds to study the noise problem,
allows for that to happen.
I encourage you to once again enact a ban on engineering, design, and construction of the
sixth runway while continuing to allow the FAA to study the noise problem and search for
solutions.
I appreciate this committee's past support for the ban and I ask that you support the
people around DIA by enacting the ban for one more year.
ggv72(6
F: FLEY
COLORADO • COMMITTEES
FIFTH DISTRICT NATIONAL SECURITY
SMALL BUSINESS
RESOURCES
Congress of tije Elniteb iptates'
3ouge of 1Sepregeutatlbeg
Testimony for the Record
Submitted by Congressman Joel Hefley
To the Aviation Subcommittee
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
For the Hearing Held on March 19, 1998
I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony before the Committee regarding an
important issue to me and many of my constituents. As you know, the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee has placed a ban on any federal money being used to build a sixth
runway at Denver International Airport. Each year, I have encouraged that Committee to
maintain the ban. My issue is not with whether a sixth runway is needed at DIA for capacity
reasons, although I am convinced that it is not needed. My objection to the sixth runway, and the
reason this ban is in place, is to force the City of Denver to take responsibility for the noise
problems around DIA and do something to lessen those problems.
Nearly three years ago, shortly after Denver International Airport first opened for
business, I began receiving complaints about the noise around the airport. I felt it was
unconscionable that Denver would hold no regard for the people and communities that surround
the new airport. You have heard the other side state that Stapleton Airport in Denver had a far
greater noise impact than DIA does today. That may be true, but I had little sympathy for those
homes who built around that airport, knowing full well they had a noisy airport for a neighbor.
But DIA is different. Most of these homes were already there before the airport opened. Many
of the communities, like those in Douglas County that I represent, are mainly rural, with
typically low ambient noise levels. What's more, they didn't have any say in whether that airport
would become their new neighbor.
It is true that the noise levels, in most cases, are below what I believe to be FAA's flawed
standard of 65 LDN, but that does not make their noise problems any less real or any less serious.
DIA changed that for thousands of Colorado residents, and it infuriated them when they were
told by Denver officials that they did not have a noise problem. I urged a ban on the sixth
runway as a way to force Denver to acknowledge a noise problem they refused to take
responsibility for, and then to do something about it.
Last year, Denver began to acknowledge the noise problem. We began working with
Denver on ways that they could get their sixth runway, and the people around the airport could
get some relief from the noise. However, I wanted Denver to lessen the noise before the ban was
WASHINGTON OFFICE: COLORADO SPRINGS OFFICE:
2230 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ENGLEWOOD OFFICE:
104 SOUTH CASCADE,SUITE 105 6059 SOUTH QUEBEC,SUITE 103
WASHINGTON,DC 20515 COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80903
12021 225-4422 17191 520-0055 ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111 f�
(303)843-0401 QJo )
lifted, and Denver disagreed, wanting the ban lifted first. In exchange, they would promise the
noise problem would be studied. I disagreed and the ban was extended another year.
Late last year, Denver finally stepped forward, contributing money to help fund an
independent analyst to study the noise problem around DIA. Most of the counties around the
airport participated in the study group and each contributed to the cost of the analyst. While I
was hopeful that the study would suggest some viable solutions, I chose not to be formally
associated with the study group because I feared that Denver would use the document to get a
sixth runway without first solving the noise problem.
The results of the study are in, and my reaction, as well as the people's reactions, are
mixed. The study does suggest that there are solutions. It suggests that airport operations could
be changed so as to reduce the noise levels for virtually all the effected communities. It also
states the sixth runway will neither increase nor decrease the amount of noise the aircraft
generate in the surrounding communities.
I am disturbed that some people have said that the purpose of the study was to determine
the effect a sixth runway would have on the noise problem. Now that it has been determined the
sixth runway won't increase noise levels, they want the ban remc:ed. But the purpose of the
study was to find a solution to the noise problem, not to create a document which would be used
to provide justification for lifting the ban. Unfortunately, that is what has happened. Again, let
me state that I have no opinion on whether a sixth runway is needed at DIA, but I must continue
to hold by my previous statement, "No sixth runway until the noise problem is solved." No
solutions have been implemented, so therefore we must maintain the ban or some form of it.
I am outraged at the assertion of others who have testified that the new noise study
"breaks the linkage of noise to the sixth runway that opponents had been trying to forge and
exposes such efforts as without a factual foundation." As the leader of the effort to link the sixth
runway with the noise problem,I can unequivocally state that I have never attempted to link the
sixth runway to an increase in noise. The only reason I have sought to hold up the sixth runway
was to force Denver to the table and get them to help us work to towards a solution to the noise
problem.
When I demand that the noise problem be solved, I do not expect the airport to go away,
and I don't expect the noise to go away. All I wan'is for each community to have their noise
lessened, even if it is just a little bit. And in that process, I don't want anybody's noise
increased. The Wyle Laboratories study suggests this is possible. I will be working with the
FAA, and I hope Denver will too, in hopes that the data in the new report can be used by the
FAA to find new solutions to what is now an old problem.
And Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not at least mention one last aspect of other
testimony you have received regarding this issue. It involves the DIA's noise complaint
database. My office has received frequent complaints from constituents who have tried to get
through on the lines available and had no luck. And despite the technical flaws in the answering
machine system, I don't dispute that the complaint calls have begun to drop. I know that if I
98v726
called an answering machine to complain for three solid years, and never received any relief, I
would probably stop calling the machine too. Unfortunately, what we are left with is a few over-
zealous complainants who are doing a very effective job in strengthening Denver's position.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for your help in working with the FAA in obtaining
relief for the residents around Denver International Airport. It may be true that other airports in
the country have more residents that live within the FAA's high noise standard. But how many
airport regions out there have had the communities around the airport team up with the airport to
fund a high-tech study which shows that solutions are out there, today, and the FAA just needs to
find and implement them.
My friends from Denver came and testified about there concern about noise, but they
asked your help in only one thing, lifting the ban on the sixth runway. I have only one thing to
ask of you as well. Help me, and help the residents around DIA get some relief from the aircraft
noise. If you can help us in that, both sides will get what they came here for.
q 77c
TESTIMONY OF
STEPHANIE FOOTE
CHIEF OF STAFF
OFFICE OF MAYOR WELLINGTON WEBB
•
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
BEFORE THE
AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I. Introduction and Summary.
Mr. Chairman, 01 twig' l of Mayor Wellington. Web'.:. of .:.c Cit; s. Count., of Denver, i want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and to be able to tell you that, just about
three weeks ago, on February 28, 1998, Denver International Airport successfully completed its third
full year of operations.
Mr. Chairman, you and several of your colleagues on this Subcommittee, as well as your staff, have
visited our airport and have seen this world-class facility. I would like to extend an invitation to those
of you who have not yet had the opportunity to see DIA, to have Mayor Webb give you a personal
tour of this state-of-the-art airport. With several major airports being built elsewhere around the
world, they all come to Denver to see how to do it and we are very proud to display America's high
level of expertise in airport technology. Last year, DIA was presented the Outstanding Civil
Engineering Achievement Award by the American Society of Civil Engineers in recognition of its
notable design and excellent construction and DIA is among 100 major public works and
infrastructure projects worldwide that is vying for recognition as one of the Top 10 Construction
Achievements of the 20th century.
DIA would not have been possible without funding authorized by this Subcommittee through the
Airport Improvement Program, which enabled the FAA to provide grants and equipment and facilities
for this nationally-important project. DIA was the first major airport built in the United States in over
20 years. It is a critical component of our national aviation system and our transportation
infrastructure that Chairman Shuster and you and your fellow Members are working so hard to
improve. Without Congress, DOT, the FAA and the City of Denver, all working together closely,
DIA would not have happened.
Today, I would like to give you an update on our operations and also to seek your c�ntir.ue i sapport
of our effort to complete DIA's airfield by completing our sixth runway, which was part of the
original airport plan and is now an important, missing component of the airport.
There are three main reasons why DIA was built.
One was to provide a more efficient, cost-effective and user-friendly facility for the citizens of the •
City of Denver, the State of Colorado and the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions, and the
millions of visitors who are so important to our economy. For them, DIA is the gateway to the rest of
the country and the world.
The second, closely tied to the first, was to provide a more cost-effective and efficient hub by 7
reducing the delays at the old Stapleton Airport that were severely and negatively impacting the
of4 3/26/98 11:01 AM
nation's air transportation system and were keeping Denver from taking full advantage of its central
geographic location.
Third, Stapleton was the source of serious noise problems that needed to be solved. Stapleton was
located only seven miles from downtown Denver and was surrounded on three sides by residential
communities. About 14,000 people lived within the 65 dB DNL contour -- the noise level which the
FAA has determined is unsuitable for homes.
I can report to you today that DIA has attained or exceeded expectations as to each of these goals. The
Airports revenues have exceeded its expenses in each of its three years of existence; it is highly
efficient and one of the world's most user-friendly airports; it had the second lowest percentage of
delays among the nation's 20 busiest airports in 1997, which was good news not only for Denver but
for the national system; and we have dramatically reduced the number of people within the 65 db
DNL noise contour from about 14,000 to less than 200.
In sum, DIA has made a major contribution to the efficiency of the carriers operating at the Airport
and to the national air transportation system through reduced flight delays and fuel savings and has
dramatically improved the impact of noise on those who were most heavily affected.
Let me now turn to more specifics about the results of DIA's first three years of operation.
II. DIA Is Financially Sound.
DIA's record of performance reflects the fact that the Airport is well-managed by the City and
financially sound. For 1997, we handled about 34.9 million passengers, an 8 percent increase over
1996 and the highest ever for Denver. This solid traffic level is eviuence of Denver's strong origin
and destination market and its central geographic location for east-west hubbing operations. For 1997,
our net revenues, i.e., revenues less operating expenses and debt payments, were about $17.6 million.
Under our agreement with the airlines, 80 percent of these net revenues are provided to the carriers,
which reduces their costs at DIA.
We have carefully managed our revenue sources, such as concessions and parking, as well as our
costs, particularly through successful refinancing of our debt obligations, which has created important
savings that are shared with the air carriers. Our strong financial performance has enabled us to
reduce our costs per enplanement, which were projected to be $18.02 when we opened in 1995, to
about $16.22 by the end of 1997, a 10 percent reduction. As we enter our fourth year of operations,
we expect that DIA will continue to have an excellent record and will continue to be one of the
world's most efficient airports.
III. DIA Has Substantially Reduced Delays.
Our second major goal was to reduce delays. For 1997, we had 2.9 delays per thousand operations,
the second best percentage among the top 20 U.S. airports. In contrast, we suffered 14 delays per
thousand operations at Stapleton, one of the waist records in the United States. Stapleton, a major
connecting airport for travellers flying between the eastern and western parts of the country, was a
terrible bottleneck during bad weather. While Stapleton could handle 88 air carrier jet arrivals per
hour on two runways in good weather, it would be down to only one runway and barely 32 arrivals
per hour in a storm, causing tremendous backups throughout our national system. That was one of the
major reasons for then-Secretary of Transportation Skinner's strong support without which DIA would
never have been built.
Since DIA opened, its benefits to the national system are dramatically reflected in the on-time statistics
I just cited. Closer to home, on the day we opened, Denver was hit by a snowstorm that would have
crippled Stapleton, leaving it with only one runway capable of handling 32 operations per hour. Yet,
DIA had three runways operating simultaneously with a capacity to handle up to 120 flights per hour.
IV. DIA Has Substantially Reduced Aircraft Noise Impacts.
of 4 Cifil
/2 3/26/98 11:01 AM
- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Our third major goal was to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the people of our communities. Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, we have probably achieved more in reducing airport noise
significantly for our citizens than any large airport in the nation. We did that by moving the airport
from seven miles from downtown to 23 miles from downtown. That took us from a very high
population density area to one with very low population density. We also acquired 53 square miles
(34,000 acres) -- twice the size of Manhattan -- to give us a large buffer zone around the airport. As a
result, the number of people who now live within an area defined as the 65dB noise contour, which
Congress has deemed to be unsuitable for homes, is down from 14,000 at Stapleton to less than 200 at
DIA. •
Notwithstanding this outstanding progress, the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee
has, since FY 1995, punished Denver by prohibiting the Airport from applying for AIP funds to
complete its sixth runway.
As we have testified in prior years, DIA was designed to have six runways, giving it a balanced
airfield for arrivals and departures. We completed the first five runways prior to opening. The FAA
awarded Denver a $10 million AIP grant for the site'preparation work for the sixth runway in 1993.
This work was completed in 1996. Since then, unfortunately, construction has been halted by the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's funding prohibition. The prohibition is there not
because we are violating the law or doing anything improper. Instead, it appears to be an attempt to
penalize the Airport for noise levels that are actually far below federally-mandated standards.
The Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee imposed the funding prohibition in the FY 1995
Transportation Appropriations Bill, prior to DIA's opening. No rationale was ever offered other than
that the DIA project had "problems". When that impression was amply shown to be inaccurate, noise
complaints became the justification for the prohibition.
It is a fact that, notwithstanding the great reduction in our noise impacted population, DIA, like every
major airport in the nation, still receives noise complaints. However, the complaints must be viewed
in perspective. The DIA noise complaint database for the period September 1996 through August 1997
showed that ten addresses made a total of about 36,000 calls or about 50 percent of all calls. Some
calls came from individuals as far as 50 miles away where the noise impact is significantly below 40
dB. The noise levels for many of these individuals, while no doubt bothersome to them, are not within
the FAA's established criteria, so that there are no Federal resources available for mitigation
purposes. Nonetheless, we have taken these community concerns very seriously and have worked to
address them.
Several years ago, after DIA opened, the City established a technical task force consisting of experts
from DIA, United Airlines, other airlines at DIA, noise and airspace consultants and seven nearby
counties to address the noise impacts on all the surrounding communities. In 1995, the Task Force
issued nine recommendations, including construction of DIA's sixth runway. Denver and the FAA
have implemented seven of these recommendations. The eighth recommendation is under review. The
ninth recommendation is the sixth runway. While these efforts Lave reduced the noise impacts, Denver
has gone the extra mile in taking even further steps.
In August, 1997, Denver and seven of the counties near DIA formally organized the DIA Study
Coordination Group, a non-profit corporation, to perform a comprehensive and costly analysis of the
noise caused by aircraft using DIA and to develop recommendations to address the noise concerns.
The Group retained Wyle Laboratories, a national, highly-regarded, independent consultant, to
perform the study. The results were announced on March 3, 1998 and can be summarized as follows:.
1. The Number of People Adversely Impacted
under Existing Federal Standards Is Small.
Of the 1.2 million people covered by the Study, only 198 (0.02 percent) are within the 65 dB or
greater noise band, one of the best records for any major airport in the world. This is the only group
3/26/98 11:01 AM
3of4 9& 7;14'
for which Congress has established a program of Federal funding for noise mitigation.
2. Changing DIA's Flights Paths Could Reduce Noise Impacts Even Further.
By changing flight paths, the number of people in the 55 to 65 dB.contour could, optimally, be
reduced by 77 percent, from 91,262 to 21,609.
3. The Sixth Runway Has No Significant Impact On Noise.
One of the Study's most important findings is that the Sixth Runway "would not substantially change
the number of persons impacted" by aircraft noise. This conclusion breaks the linkage of noise to the
sixth runway that opponents had been trying to forge and exposes such efforts as without a factual
foundation. In fact, although it was not studied, the consultants suggested that the new runway may
further mitigate noise because of the additional options it would provide the FAA in regulating traffic
flow.
4. The Noise Impacts from Buckley Air National Guard Base and Centennial Airport Are
Greater Than the Noise Impacts from DIA.
The Study also revealed that those who are within the 55 to 65 dE noise contours are largely living
within contours generated by air traffic at close-by Buckley, an Air National Guard Base, and
Centennial Airport, a general aviation airport. Notably, these are not contours created by DIA's flight
operations. Yet, DIA is being punished by the prohibition on funding.
V. Denver Should No Longer Be Barred From
Seeking AIP Funds For DIA's Runway.
Mr. Chairman, DIA has been operating successfully for three years. We have done everything
possible to reduce noise impacts in the communities around the Airport. We have fewer people
seriously impacted by noise than any other major airport in the nation. Yet, we alone are
discriminated against by being the only airport in the U.S. that is prohibited by law from even
applying to the FAA for grant funds to build a runway. There are over 3,000 airports nationwide that
are eligible to compete for AIP funds and we believe we merit an equal right to compete by having the
statutory prohibition lifted. If there are continuing concerns with DIA, we will work with Congress,
the FAA or whoever else is involved to address them. However, punitive legislation like this is unfair,
establishes a bad precedent and is simply not warranted.
Continuing the prohibition punishes not only the people of Colorado but the entire nation. DIA is a
national asset. About 60 percent of the 35 million passengers using DIA each year come from states
other than Colorado. Thus, the AIP funding prohibition hurts not only DIA, but travellers throughout
the country.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I am not skii.g thu. Subcommittee to give us AIP funds for the sixth
runway. I am simply asking this Subcommittee to let the AIP statutory criteria and FAA regulations
apply to DIA, just as they do to thousands of other airports nationwide, and ask that you support
lifting the prohibition on AIP funding for DIA's sixth runway, this year.
Thank you.
•
of 4 qs,v,m 3/26/98 11:01 AM
Hello