Julia Carson

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the form of the resolution appear in the Record at this point.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. The caucus was formed to focus attention on issues of special concern to women-- such as preventive health services for women, domestic violence, discrimination in education and the workplace. One of my first acts in Congress was to join the caucus, and I am proud to be a member of it. Among our accomplishments in the 20 years since the Women's Caucus was formed, we have shepherded to passage legislation protecting pregnant women from employment discrimination, improving enforcement of child-support orders, providing a 3-year extension of health insurance coverage for wives and divorced spouses, ensuring that the National Institutes of Health do not ignore research on the health problems of women, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our work is not finished, however. American women still face discrimination in employment and pay. We need more protections in child support enforcement and domestic violence. We need the caucus now more than ever.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express strong opposition to the Quinn amendment. While the Amtrak reform and privatization bill makes some vital improvements to the Nation's passenger rail system, it also includes very dangerous provisions that will hurt Amtrak's employees and passengers. It throws Amtrak employees into the same uncertainty that faces so many other American workers today. The bill ends race protections for displaced and downgraded Amtrak workers that have been in place since the 1980's. It does away with the law protecting Amtrak employees against being replaced by contract workers without the same guarantees of wages and benefits like health care. In my district, this provision in the bill would allow Amtrak to replace 706 workers at the Amtrak maintenance shop in Beech Grove, IN, with contract workers in other States. Taking away people's jobs is not reform. Let us not balance Amtrak's books by depriving people like the Beech Grove shop workers of their jobs. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette- Traficant amendment and to reject the Quinn amendment.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, during this general debate there are certain points that need to be made crystal clear. Amtrak's most important assets are the many men and women who work hard to make sure that our Nation's rail passenger trains operate safely. The bill before us today simply is not fair to these employees. It creates a gaping hole in the law which will deprive Amtrak workers of wage protections which have been in place since the 1930's for displaced and downgraded employees. It also removes restrictions on contracting out work. This would allow Amtrak management to throw away its employees by making their jobs disappear. This provision in the bill would directly affect 706 workers in the 10th Congressional District of Indiana. Amtrak operates a maintenance shop in Beech Grove, IN, to keep its engines and passenger coaches in good running order. This bill would allow Amtrak to shut down that facility and shift maintenance to privately contracted shops outside of Indiana. The 706 workers at the Beech Grove maintenance shop deserve better than this. They are doing a good job and receive health care and other benefits. I do not believe that we should be eliminating those jobs and sending the work out of Indiana, especially the contract facilities that do not give their workers the same pay and benefits. That is why I support the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. It would restore the labor protections that exist in current law and would preserve the jobs in Beech Grove. I compliment my two colleagues for offering this amendment. The Quinn amendment, on the other hand, would only make minor improvements to the bill. By voting for the Quinn amendment, we would be voting against the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. Do not be fooled. The Quinn amendment does nothing to help Amtrak workers. It is a killer amendment designed to defeat the important labor protections that the LaTourette-Traficant amendment seeks to restore. When these amendments are offered, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject Quinn and adopt LaTourette-Traficant.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, the following statement from the Indianapolis, IN, deputy chief of police is offered for insertion into the Congressional Record. Mr. Turner provides provocative thoughts and sensible responses to the challenges we face in ``Juvenile Crime Prevention: Sound Policies Vs. Sound Bites.'' Juvenile Crime: Sound Policies vs. Sound Bite Issues Forum (By Robert B. Turner) Ladies and gentleman, members of Congress, and fellow panelists; I am truly honored to be here today, the opportunity to address you and the opportunity to participate in this forum is an opportunity of a lifetime for me. I have been a member of The Indianapolis Police Department for approximately twenty-five years and I have been a licensed attorney for more than twelve years. During these often conflicting and competitive professions, I have always held a sincere and religious commitment to my fellow man; but, I especially love children. I believe that children are the most sincere and genuine people on earth. When I think of children I often think of the biblical passage in the Book of Luke, chapter 8,5. ``A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. Some fell upon rock, and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture . . . And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it . . . And some fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bore fruit a hundredfold.'' The topic of this forum is Juvenile Crime: Sound Policies vs. Sound Bite Issues. The real question that we are asking ourselves today is in fact ``Where Are We as a Society, as a Community, Sowing Our Seeds?'' In the city of Indianapolis we recently arrested a young African-American male for murdering another young African- American male for the purpose of taking his tennis shoes. In very similar incidents involving knives, guns, and other deadly weapons, young people have committed homicides and aggravated assaults while stealing items such as ``Starter Jackets,'' ``Cheap gold chains,'' ``designer wheels on cars,'' and other ego based articles. A young woman recently gave birth to an infant and abandoned her newborn child inside of a latrine in an Indiana State Park. The young lady left her living child in the latrine; fortunately the child's life was saved by a stranger who happened by. Another young mother assaulted and killed her infant child because the child would not stop crying. In all major cities throughout the nation, young people are being abandoned by their parents, communities, schools, and governments and are in fact being raised, educated, and motivated by television, computer networks, nintendo games, violent movies, local gangs, drug organizations, and experienced criminals. These young people being products of their nonconventional environments, are using drugs, selling drugs, resorting to criminal behavior, resorting to violence; and they are being arrested, imprisoned and warehoused at very young ages, and for extended periods of time. So where in fact are we sowing our seeds if more and more of our children are using drugs, using deadly weapons, being murdered, or being arrested? There is a popular soft drink in America called the ``Uncola''. It is transparent/clear and you can see right through it. It would be totally invisible if it did not contain the carbonation which creates and bubbles. I often refer to the lost children of our nation, ``our lost seeds'' as the ``the unchildren,'' ``the uns'' for short. They are un-cared for, un-supervised, un-supported, un- educated, un-employed, un-healthy, un-popular, un- cooperative, un-conventional, un-grateful, un-sympathetic, and generally un-wanted. They are invisible in our society, and but for their rebelliousness, ``their carbonation,'' we would see right through them. I currently serve as the Deputy Chief of Police in the city of Indianapolis and I supervise the Criminal Investigations Division which includes units such as the Homicide Branch, the Robbery Branch, Metro-Gang Task Force, Narcotics-Metro Drug, Sex Crimes Unit, Domestic Violence Unit, White Collar Crime Unit, the Vice Unit and the Juvenile Branch. When these young people are brought into the criminal justice system after being arrested and incarcerated by our officers, I often ask myself ``What can I do with this child?'' The standard, customary, typical, and conventional responses are incarceration, home detention, probation, rehabilitation, and recirculation. More often than not, it is simply too late; ``Our seeds have fallen by the way side, they have been trodden down, the fowls of the earth have devoured them, they have withered away because they lacked moisture, the thorns of the earth have choked them.'' We as a society, we as a community, have foreclosed our options because we have been careless, we have failed to do as the Bible suggests, we have failed to sow our seeds on good ground. I admire both the courage and the lasting wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I often think of and refer to the words of Dr. King, in his famous ``Letter from Birmingham Jail,'' because he spoke of a people ``smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; of ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in the little mental sky of children; of observing the children as they begin to distort their personalities by developing an unconscious bitterness toward people who are different; and, of those children forever fighting a degenerating sense of nobodiness.'' Think about that word, ``Nobodiness.'' Does the term ``Nobodiness'' apply to the young African-American male that killed another young man for a pair of tennis shoes? Does the term ``Nobodiness'' apply to the young woman who delivered a living fetus alone in a secluded place and immediately abandoned it, leaving her living child alone and unloved, to die in a filthy latrine? Does the term ``Nobodiness'' apply to young people all over this nation who take up arms against their neighbors, former friends and school mates in the name of gang honor, colors and territories? Does the term ``Nobodiness'' apply when educational institutions, governmental agencies, prospective employers, and medical service providers treat certain people with disrespect because of their nationality, poverty, color, or ethnicity; or when individual law enforcement officers acting under color of law, use inhumane methods, weapons, or tools such as toilet plungers to ``Break a person down?'' To break a person down to ``Nobodiness.'' As an attorney and a law enforcement officer, I believe that our society must develop both a desire and a plan that allows us to sow our seeds upon good ground long before our seeds are trodden down; long before our children develop this degenerating sense of nobodiness; long before we invest in the standardize methods of incarceration, probation, or rehabilitation. Our plan, and our duty as leaders and parents is to plant the seeds of ``Somebodiness'' in our children. The seeds of ``justice,'' ``equality,'' ``education,'' ``self-esteem,'' ``love,'' and ``opportunity,'' in ``all'' of our children, not simply as individual parents of our specific children, but as true sowers of all of God's seeds; it truly takes a village to raise a child. We must raise our children on a solid foundation of love, self-respect, parental commitment, education, opportunity, family, community, character, and religion. We must plant our seeds and our future on good ground. We must serve as examples for our children, and we must nurture, support and protect our children. We must invest our hearts and our future in them long before the thorns of the earth choke them out. Long before the drugs, guns, and gangs act to devour our children's futures. When we act to care for our children as God directed us to do, only then will they ``spring up and bare fruit a hundred fold''; only then may we say that we are truly sowers of God's seeds; only then may we say that we have terminated the evils that drugs, guns, gangs, and crime have visited upon our children, families, and communities. I can proudly tell you that the children, the sick, the elderly, the poor, the weak and the oppressed in the city of Indianapolis and in the Tenth Congressional District, truly have friend, a supporter, a good sower of seeds, and an excellent Congressional Representative in the Honorable Julia Carson, and based upon the history of the Congressional Black Caucus, I know that all of the people in this great nation have support, friendship, understanding, love and very good ground in all of you. Thank you so much for this opportunity to address you.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 9, I was necessarily absent from the House and unable to cast the following rollcall votes. I ask permission that the following explanation for each vote be placed in the appropriate place in the official Record. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent and unable to cast the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 371, 372, 373, 374, and 377; and ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 376, 378, and 379.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast the following rollcall votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 380, ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 381, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 382, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 384, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 385, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 386. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to speak out of order for 1 minute.) Announcement Regarding Amendments to House Resolution 168, to Implement the Recommendations of the Bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 8, and Tuesday, September 9, I was necessarily absent from the House and unable to cast the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Nay on rollcall vote No. 369, the Blunt amendment which sought to reduce funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by $11.2 million and increase funding for vocational education by $11.2 million. Nay on rollcall vote No. 370, the Norwood amendment which sought to reduce funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by $11.2 million and increase funding for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by $11.2 million. Nay on rollcall vote No. 371, the Miller of California motion to adjourn. Nay on rollcall vote No. 372, the Doggett motion to adjourn. Nay on rollcall vote No. 373, the Souder amendment that sought to transfer $21 million from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Federal enforcement account and $2 million from the executive direction and administration account to the compliance assistance account. Nay on rollcall vote No. 374, the McIntosh motion that the Committee rise. Yea on rollcall vote No. 376, the Burton amendment that sought to provide $1 million in funding for the ``We the People'' educational program designed to educate high school and middle school students on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nay on rollcall vote No. 377, the Coburn amendment that sought to transfer $35 million to the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program from a variety of accounts. Yea on rollcall vote No. 378, the Castle substitute amendment to the Istook amendment to require health centers that receive Federal planning funds to encourage family involvement and to counsel minors on methods to resist coercive sexual activities. Yea on rollcall vote No. 379, the Istook amendment as amended by the Castle substitute amendment that requires providers of services under title X of the Public Health Service Act to certify that family participation is encouraged in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and that counseling is provided on how to resist coercive sexual activities.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 8, I was necessarily absent from the House and unable to cast the following rollcall votes. I ask permission that the following explanation for each vote be placed in the appropriate place in the official Record. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent and unable to cast the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 369 and 370.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. I am happy and saddened to join in grieving the tragic and untimely accidental death of Princess Diana, the Princess of the world, the Queen of Hearts, an appropriate characterization of a beautiful human being. Princess Diana, by virtue of her status, had power. She chose to use her power to empower human lives abound. She knew that power was a gift to be used on behalf of humankind. She never elevated herself above the powerless. Rather, she shook the hands of the AIDS victims and embraced those who were both hopeless and helpless. What a positive role model for the Congress, the power of Congress and how our power must be used instrumentally to uplift the lives of other human beings. As we mourn the loss and celebrate her life, we are reminded of her work in eliminating land mines everywhere. An Angolan, Guerra Freitas, who now works for CARE made the following points: that Angola, for example, has a population of 10 million and that there are an estimated 10 to 20 million land mines in Angola, two for each person. There are approximately 70,000 amputees, the largest number of any country in the world. Another gentleman of Greenfield Consultants, a humanitarian deminer, made the following points: that every province in Angola has been mined; the number one donor nations for demining are the UK, the USA, Canada and the European Union. The United States currently supports land mine removal programs around the world through the DOD Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the State Department, as well as the U.N. and other nongovernmental organizations. For every mine the international community clears, 20 new mines are deployed. While millions of dollars are spent each year on assistance to anti-personnel mine victims, there are some 70 new victims every day. In June, Princess Diana joined the American Red Cross, Elizabeth Dole, in a new bid to raise the alarm about the threat of land mines and to raise money to help the victims of ``these dreadful weapons,'' she said. Mr. Speaker, what better way can we celebrate Princess Diana than to ensure the universal ban on land mines. Starting, of course, with America, the beautiful, the poor, and certainly for Diana, even though she did not know at that time, O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life. America, America, God shed his grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. I beseech my distinguished colleagues to offer a lasting commemoration to a wonderful Queen of Hearts, Princess Diana, and certainly I join in the countless prayers that pore out around the world in support of the biological family of Princess Diana and especially her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, in the premature loss of their mother.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a speech given by James A. Joseph, United States Ambassador to South Africa, at the Meridan House International, Washington, DC, on May 20, 1997. Ambassador Joseph's speech entitled ``South Africa at Year Three'' is an outstanding assessment of the impact of the democratic government since the first all race elections was held April 27, 1994. Ambassador Joseph states ``there is still much hope and high expectations in South Africa as it begins its fourth year of the new democracy.'' I am pleased to share Ambassador Joseph's wisdom with my colleagues. South Africa at Year Three (By James A. Joseph) The best way to assess the impact of three years of democratic government in South Africa is to look at how the new government defined its immediate and most urgent goals in 1994. The priorities of the new leaders were described as: (1) establishing a legitimate government that would be both democratic and an effective instrument for change; (2) nation-building and reconciliation; and (3) reconstruction and development. Establishing a legitimate government The greatest challenge facing the ANC when it assumed power was that of establishing a legitimate, effective and credible government. Apart from the normal difficulties facing a political movement that had never been in government before, the ANC was faced with the altogether more daunting task of transforming the entire nature of governance in South Africa. Having inherited a state machinery designed to meet the needs of a small racially defined minority, the ANC has had to mold the institutions of government--under severe resource and time constraints--to serve not only the interest of the majority but the whole country. How successful has the ANC been in establishing a legitimate and effective government? The legitimacy of the government is accepted by all parties, but effectiveness is too often in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, however, that there are now representative governments at all levels; national, provincial and local. There is a new constitution which protects human rights, guarantees equal opportunity and provides for open and fair elections. At the same time, there is no more detention without trial, house arrests, bannings, bombings and political violence have subsided. The press is free, the far right has almost disappeared and many former ideologues have turned out to be very pragmatic. South Africa is a country that works. Away from national media coverage, streets are being tarred, refuse collection being improved, schools being renovated and health clinics being built and upgraded. In April, government officials gathered in a rural village in the Northern Province to celebrate the millionth person to receive water under the government's program of bringing water to the people. More than a million homes have been supplied with electricity since the new government came into power. Two hundred thousand new homes are presently under construction and millions of children now benefit from the school nutrition program, free medical care and free and compulsory education. Many communities can now feel secure on a piece of land they call their own, with over 250 land distribution projects underway affecting over 57,000 households and 1.7 million hectares. Many families now benefit from the farmer support program and extension of agriculture credit. The national government, the Parliament and the Courts are functioning well. Provincial and local governments have been much slower in taking hold in some places than others, but many are starting to become delivery systems for needed services. It is important to remember that the local government elections completed last year established a legitimate but interim foundation for local government. The final structure of the local government system will come out of a review process that will lead to legislation by the end of 1997. With the presentation of the 1997 budget to Parliament earlier this year, the national government reached a new level of credibility. Even the most ardent critic of the ANC government admitted that the new budget was sound and the performance of the Finance Minister and his team impressive. This was a crowning moment in the marriage of legitimacy with credibility. Working Through Political Parties One can not speak of governance without at least saying a word about the role of political parties. Until two weeks ago, the strategy of the National Party seemed to be both a strategy of ``deepening'' and ``broadening'' its support base. As explained to me by Roelf Meyer two weeks before he got the ax, the former, the growth and development path, sought to consolidate the NP's traditional white and colored constituencies. The latter, the ``realignment path,'' was designed to reach out to groups and individuals across the political/color spectrum who may be looking for something new in 1999, with a view toward forming an alliance capable of challenging the ANC. After considerable exploration by Meyer and a realistic report to the party of the image difficulty of a political party still strongly associated with apartheid in the public mind, the voices of Roelf Meyer and his expansion-minded colleagues were silenced. Just before leaving Cape Town last week, I spoke to one of the members of the task force who told me that the National Party is now in disarray with its future uncertain. The ANC is also undergoing transformation, but the changes are of a different type. The 1994 deployment of its members into three spheres of government, the public service, the security forces and the diplomatic corps, left many ANC branches in a depleted state. However, its structures are beginning to demonstrate vitality, and in some instances independence, again. New branches are being launched and internal conflicts which seemed at one time to be tearing the party apart are being more strategically managed and some of the wounds healing. After being overwhelmingly re-elected head of the ANC's Women's League, Winnie Mandela announced to cheering supporters that she was ANC for life. Bantu Holomisa, who was expelled from the ANC for bringing the party into disrepute, is another case, but while he is testing the waters for a new movement even he admits that the ANC is likely to be the dominant party for awhile. I believe, however, that one of the coming threats to party cohesion is the growing importance of provincial issues and interests. We will see more issue-based, ad hoc alliances as we are already seeing in Gauteng. The IFP has undergone some face-lifting with a new Premier, who was a widely respected Minister in the national government, and new faces emerging in other areas of leadership. But the IFP is still Buthelezi's party and his emphasis on traditional leaders and traditional culture still defines the parameters of party appeal. Great gains have been made in collaborating with the ANC to reduce political violence and there is now talk of collaborating in other areas as well, particularly in meeting the needs of the poor. The Democratic Party and the PAC seems destined to attract far more media attention than followers. Economic Empowerment of the Majority What we have seen in South Africa in the political empowerment of the majority has not been matched by economic empowerment. Unemployment, now estimated at between thirty- four and forty percent, continues to be one of the new government's most difficult challenges. One hundred seventy five companies are reported to have invested in South Africa last year, but very little of this was job-creating investment. In my view, the South African economy is in a period of consolidation prior to heading for increasing growth. The pundits estimate two- to four-percent growth in 1997 with the primary goal of the government's plan for Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) of six per cent growth by the year 2000. This clearly defines the challenge. But I side with the optimists when I look at the performance of the Mandela government since coming into office. After a decade in which falls in GDP were more frequent than rises, the Mandela era has brought both economic growth and single- digit inflation. The economy grew by 1.3% in 1993, 2.7% in 1994, 3.3% in 1995 and 3.1% in 1996. The pessimists will point to a rand which has slipped to 4.44 to the dollar, prime interest rates nudging over 20 percent, low reserves at 12.5 billion rand, a low savings rate and public debt at 56 percent of GDP. And even the government admits that achieving the GEAR goal of 400,000 new jobs annually will be difficult, but, for 1997 at least, the sale of 30 percent of the parastatal Telekom to the SBC/ Malaysian consortium is expected to provide 50,000 new jobs alone. It is useful to remind the pessimists, therefore, that all of these are the problems the GEAR is meant to address and South Africa has in three years already come a long way toward overcoming the legacy of apartheid of a closed, protected, stagnant, inefficient economy. What about the much repeated goal of black empowerment, a concept that means different things to different people? Black empowerment is a major factor in government privatization strategics. The white apartheid government, for all its anti-socialist rhetoric, created a surprisingly socialist state. A startling 50 percent of South African assets were in state hands when the Mandela government took office. The apartheid state owned almost all of the electric company, the telephone company, the national airline, the arms industry, the railroads, busses, ports, hospitals and television stations. It drilled for gas, logged forests, mined some diamonds, grew mangoes and even ran water fun parks. The new leaders have made a commitment to privatization. They see it as a way of encouraging efficiency, lowering prices and attracting more foreign investors; but they want first to gain sufficient control to ensure that privatization contributes to the empowerment of the majority rather than simply increasing wealth concentration in the hands of the white minority. If done right, it is estimated that privatization could raise as much as 30 billion dollars for public purposes. Another strategy for black empowerment is skills development. The Minister of Labor's Green Paper on skills development proposes a two percent payroll level to fund new training programs for workers. The recent World Productivity Report ranked South Africa 44th of 45 developing countries in terms of human resource development. This is one of the legacies of apartheid that will take some time to unravel. Black empowerment has been greatly aided by decisions of the largest South African companies to unbundle. Anglo American which controlled sixty percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) ten years ago has reduced its share to 24%. The top five conglomerates that together controlled 85% of the JSE ten years ago have reduced their share to 67%. The clear trend has been toward ownership by smaller, more tightly focused companies. There is a paradigm shift in ownership and distribution taking place that goes far beyond the emerging black elite. There is a new crop of blacks who describe themselves as the patriotic bourgeoisie. They contend that they have the interests of the country at heart and are not motivated exclusively by self-interest. One of these is Cyril Ramaphosa who, after successfully chairing the efforts to develop a new constitution, decided to devote his considerable leadership skills to black empowerment. As Chairman of Johnnic, he and Finance Minister Trevor Manuel recently announced one of the most creative initiatives to ensure wide participation in economic empowerment. It seeks to make available nine million Johnnic shares to individual black investors and smaller groups not wealthy enough to participate in the original deal. The new installment scheme involves a downpayment of six rands a share, followed by another sixty rands in three years time, by which time, if something near present growth and value continue, the shares should be worth considerably more. This may set a precedent for some of the privatizations that lie ahead. One way of analyzing success in black empowerment is to look at the Johnannesburg Stock Exchange where black control of the JSE's market capitalization increased to almost 9% at the end of last month from less than 1% in 1994. Another way of determining success is to look at the fact that there are now seventeen black controlled companies with a market capitalization of more than twenty-seven billion rands. Reconciliation, Reparations and Rehabilitation Under the leadership of President Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu, South Africa has taken reconciliation among former adversaries to a new level. Pundits debate whether the spirit of reconciliation in South Africa has its genesis in a form of African humanism known as ubuntu or whether, as some contend, it is simply a political strategy necessary for the progress of the new democracy. But what is not debatable is that after a slow and uncertain start, the formal process represented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has flushed out more of the truth than seemed likely just a few months ago. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has received more than 8,000 applications for amnesty. The National Party has taken the position that terrorist forces threatened South Africa, that officials carried out lawful orders, and only renegade members, acting independently, committed abuses. While NP top leadership accepts moral responsibility for apartheid, their position is that they did nothing wrong. The ANC, on the other hand, has submitted a 139-page document to the Commission detailing the many individual acts for which its members are seeking amnesty. The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, which led to the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also requires the Commission to make recommendations to the president on the reparation and rehabilitation of victims. Much of the Commission's work has focused on amnesty applications, leaving them very little time to give attention to the reparations and rehabilitation mandate. The victims who have testified before the Commission have generally asked for very limited reparation, medical treatment, a tombstone, the restitution of land, etc. But there is a widespread recognition that white society benefited directly from the apartheid system that for over forty years used exploitative and brutal means to limit black opportunity in order to extend white privilege. The extent of the brutality and violence revealed by the TRC has far exceeded what even the most ardent critic of apartheid had considered possible. It now appears that wealthy South Africans may be asked to pay a once-only tax to help fund reparations for victims of gross human rights violations. The ANC advised the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on May 13 that those who prospered under the apartheid system should finance meaningful reparations for the victims of gross violations of human rights on both sides of the apartheid conflict. According to the ANC statement to the TRC, ``it would be useful if the commissioners could apply their minds to considering the necessity and viability of ensuring that the Doctrine of Odious Debt is given recognition in mobilizing some of the resources that would help make the reparations more feasible.'' The Doctrine of Odious Debt was used by the ANC government as a rationale for forgiving South Africa's debt to Namibia. Fundamental to the concept are the old principles in Roman and Roman-Dutch law that the wrongdoer should not benefit from the wrongdoing. Quality of Life Some whites in South Africa see the quality of life as deteriorating. The privileges they enjoyed by being the exclusive beneficiaries of apartheid are being threatened and in some areas curtailed. The black majority who were kept outside the mainstream economy by design are demanding a fair share of the economic pie. A recent report on focus group discussions conducted in South Africa found the mood of community leaders across race and party lines to be one of ambivalence. Some local community leaders are impatient and nervous about the future. At the same time, most blacks believe that they must be patient and that the country is moving in the right direction. This patience is not to be confused with disengagement or passivity. Rather, it is a realism rooted in the belief that changing four decades of apartheid will take more than three years. Those who have enjoyed the benefits of freedom; those who take access to water and electricity for granted; those whose children have long had good schools available; those who have had good health care when and where they needed it; and those who were safe in their suburban homes while criminals were permitted to prey, sometimes in collusion with the police, on township and squatter village residents at will, are more likely to use a different yardstick to measure the quality of life in the new South Africa. Yet, there is one thing on which all South Africans agree. It is the common feeling that unless the crime rate is reduced the quality of life will be significantly impaired. There is an obsession with crime in some quarters, an obsession fed both by reality and a long period of isolation and psychological exile from the rest of the world. Many South Africans are convinced that the high level of crime they are experiencing is somehow unique to South Africa. The government has been greatly limited by the desire not to restrict newly granted liberties and by a police force beset with corruption, poorly trained and whose only major responsibility in the past was to support the maintenance of a police state. They know nothing about community policing and, in some instances, have no desire to learn. But none of this takes away from the fact that crime must be reduced and the government has a very limited window of opportunity in which to do it. More is being done, however, than is commonly assumed. The government has an anti-crime strategy and a recent report indicates that it is succeeding in some areas. Crime was down in nine categories in 1996, but every high profile bank robbery, rape or murder reminds leaders that more must be done. The bottom line is that there is still much hope and high expectations in South Africa as it begins its fourth year of the new democracy. As a black leader in a small community that seems to have every reason for despair put it, ``We are doing very well. You can actually see things like houses. Look at the electricity. Look at the clinics now. We must admit all races. So there are actually tangible, measurable changes.'' The majority population in South Africa continues to startle many by the genuineness of its approach to reconciliation and the vast reservoir of hope and goodwill that remains.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to personally pay tribute to those who served so selflessly aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis. A reunion was held in Indianapolis this weekend for those veterans who served on the U.S.S. Indianapolis, a heavy cruiser sunk by enemy torpedo on July 30, 1945. My pride and admiration, for the service of these men know no bounds. I am proud to report that I have been honored with appointment to the Veterans' Affairs Committee of Congress, an opportunity to be of special service to those who sacrificed so much for our Nation. In that work I find regular occasion to remember and to admire our citizen veterans and to help secure to them full measure of our Nation's respect for their contributions in time of peace and in the horror that is war. I am prouder still to join my voice with those who spoke to honor the men who served with such valor aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis-- those with us still and those lost in the Pacific vastness somewhere west of Guam. For their service and sacrifice in the highest tradition of our country, our respect must be eternal.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will not take the whole 5 minutes because I do not want to be redundant. I simply want to recall an adage that is worth its weight in gold, and that is, Come and let us reason together. We have had a lot of dialog in terms of welfare reform. Yet, to oppose the amendment of the honorable gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] would in fact eliminate a set-aside and provide a setback for the most vulnerable and fragile segment of our society that we seek to assist in the amendment of the gentlewoman. I would simply say, very briefly, that we need to envision welfare reform as providing an opportunity for people to become self-sufficient by providing them an apparatus to develop the right kind of vocational education and skills to enable them to move out into the world of work. This is not a spendthrift kind of amendment. It is an investment in the most fragile infrastructure of our society. I would encourage unanimous support of the Mink amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green]. (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for bringing to the fore this tribute to the Honorable Jesse Brown. Truly Jesse Brown is an honorable man, and I would not want it to appear that we are doing anything tonight beyond commending Jesse Brown, even though it may sound as though we are doing something else about Jesse Brown. But I am glad that Jesse Brown has an opportunity to hear the praise and the accolades that he so richly deserves during his lifetime. So, Mr. Speaker, and certainly to the people of the United States in general and to the veterans in particular, on July 1, an all-American public servant, the Honorable Jesse Brown will step down out of his formal role as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a position that he has served honorably, tirelessly, courageously. The Honorable Jesse Brown's public service as VA's Secretary is unparalleled. It is unsurpassed, it is uncompromising on behalf of this Nation's 26.5 million veterans. Mr. Brown directed the Federal Government's second largest department responsible for a nationwide system of health care services, benefit programs, and yes, indeed, cemeteries. Mr. Brown enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1963 and was wounded during combat in 1965 while patrolling the Da Nang area of Vietnam. As a consequence, he is a member of the military order of the Purple Heart. When he left the battlefield in Vietnam, he landed on the American battlefield for this Nation's veterans. He became a warrior for veterans in countless ways: Successfully working for the enactment of laws authorizing the VA to pay compensation for those veterans with undiagnosed illnesses and to provide them with priority health care for illnesses they possibly incurred in the gulf. To reduce a backlog of veterans' benefit claims, the Secretary formed a task force whose recommended changes have led to improved technology, redesigned work processes and staff training. Mr. Brown convened the first national summit meeting on homeless veterans under his leadership, expanded services to women veterans, including counseling for sexual trauma suffered in the military, new health centers with specialized treatment capabilities, and more full time coordinators for women's care at VA medical centers. Mr. Brown ordered sensitivity training for all of the employees as part of his campaign of putting veterans first. He guided the VA's role in the administration of health care reform. In Mr. Brown's resignation statement recently he reminded this Nation that the Veterans Affairs Department ``was formed to care for those men and women who placed themselves in harm's way. They are the citizen soldiers who have borne the battle, suffered the consequences of their determination to defend the freedoms we enjoy, and stood by our allies around the world when needed.'' He reminds us that there is still much to do, not the least of which is to continually remind this Nation that all we enjoy under the Bill of Rights the laws of the land, and bountiful fruits of the Nation are ours because more than 1 million citizens died to protect those precious freedoms, and another 1\1/2\ million citizens came home wounded and scarred for life. We can never fully repay them for their losses, but we must never forget them nor shove them aside when freedom is abundant and unchallenged. We cannot shove them aside when, under the guise of balancing the Federal budget, we deny and neglect those who fought ferociously for freedom all over this world. So, Mr. Jesse Brown, in honor of all of your good work, we thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your heroic public service, and we are reminded tonight that unto whom much is given, much is required. Mr. Brown has certainly given us much, as Secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department. Our gratitude is eternal. Unto whom much is given, much is required, Mr. Speaker, lest we forget the veterans that Mr. Brown, who himself is a veteran, has so capably and ably represented.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about justice and fairness. When we were children our parents instilled in us a sense of fairness. We were taught to be equitable and impartial and truthful when dealing with others. We were taught to aid those in need. Obviously, all of us in this body took that to heart, and that is why we are here as we pursue public service on behalf of the public. Let us consider the budget amendment in general, however. Rather than stay within the parameters of the balanced budget agreement which passed the House overwhelmingly, the Republican framers of the tax cut have decided not to play fair, and to abandon the agreement. The original agreement contained a provision to provide at least $35 billion in tax credits for college education. Yet, the Republicans have offered us only $22 billion in education tax credits, in direct violation of the budget agreement. It seems as though this sense of fairness has been lost on those framing the tax cuts, because they are attempting to undercut the agreement that was made with the President, and will deny American taxpayers $13 billion in tax relief. We should at least play fair and restore this provision of the tax cut. According to the Department of the Treasury, two-thirds of the Republican tax cuts go to families making beyond $100,000 a year. The majority of constituents in my district, Indianapolis, IN, of which nearly 50 percent make less than $25,000 a year, they certainly will be not happy, they will be unhappy to learn the fact that the Republican tax cut will go to families making over $100,000 a year, for the most part. I rise to support the Democratic alternative to the Republican tax cut package. Unlike the Republican proposal, the Democratic proposal restores some fairness to the American taxpayer and stays within the parameters of the budget agreement. In general, the Democratic tax proposal will target its cuts to those making less than $100,000 a year, not the other way around. Seventy-one percent of the Democratic tax cuts will go to nearly 91 million families across the United States that make under $100,000 a year. Twenty-three percent of the Democratic tax cuts will target the most vulnerable of our society, those making under $21,000 a year. The Democratic alternative will truly allow families to stretch their budget further and provide true tax relief, rather than just smoke and mirrors. I am particularly pleased with the education tax cut initiatives in the Democratic proposal. If we are going to truly effect positive change in our society, provide our young people the chance to improve our Nation's future, we must provide them with the opportunity to access the best education possible. The Democratic alternative provides more money for the HOPE scholarship, provides incentives for employer-provided educational assistance, and provides a source of cost-free capital for desperately needed school construction; at least $37 billion worth of tax cuts for education. It provides $15 billion more education initiative than the Republican plan does. Under the Democratic proposal, HOPE scholarship tax credits are provided at a rate of 1,100 for 1997 through 1999, increasing to $1,500 per student after the year 2000. At Indiana University at Indianapolis, tuition costs $2,400 a year. At Ivy Tech State College, it runs $1,500 a year. The Democratic HOPE tax credit will provide for nearly 50 percent of the tuition at those two referenced universities. I would encourage, Mr. Speaker, this august body to consider what is fair and adopt the Democratic alternative, so we will truly be providing both HOPE and fairness for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about fairness. When we were children, our parents instilled in us a sense of fairness. We were taught to be equitable, impartial, and truthful when dealing with others. We were taught to aid those in need. Obviously, all of us in this body took this message to heart. Otherwise, we would not have chosen a life of public service. Yet I am sad to say that in examining the recent Republican tax cut initiative, some of my colleagues have abandoned these principles. First, consider the budget agreement in general. Rather than stay within the parameters of the balanced budget agreement which passed in the House overwhelmingly, the framers of the Republican tax cut have decided not to play fair and to abandon the agreement. The original agreement contained a provision to provide at least $35 billion in tax credits for college education. Yet the Republicans have offered us only $22 billion in education tax credits, in direct violation of the Budget Agreement. It seems as though this sense of fairness has been lost on those framing the tax cuts, because they are attempting to undercut the agreement struck with the President, and deny American taxpayers $13 billion in tax relief. We should at least play fair and restore this provision into the tax cut package. Yet the skewed sense of fairness on the Republican side does not end there. The tax cut package as a whole will benefit a small percentage of middle class Americans. Let's go to the numbers. According to the Department of Treasury, two-thirds of the Republican tax cuts will go to families making over $100,000 a year. The majority of constituents in my district in Indianapolis, of which nearly 50 percent make less than $25,000 a year, will not be happy to learn this fact. The Republicans have promised in this Congress and the last that middle- class tax relief was their top priority, to allow those who work hard to take home more of their pay. Instead, middle-class taxpayers get the same old tried and true Republican tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, a Robin Hood in reverse for the majority of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Democratic alternative to the Republican tax cut package. Unlike the Republican proposal, the Democratic proposal restores fairness to the American taxpayer and stays within the parameters of the budget agreement. In general, the Democratic tax proposal will target its cuts to those making less than $100,000 a year, and not the other way around Seventy-one percent of the Democratic tax cuts will go the nearly 91 million families across the U.S. that make under $100,000 a year. Twenty-three percent of the Democrat tax cuts will target the most vulnerable of or society, those making under $21,000 a year. The Democratic alternative will truly allow families to stretch their budget further and provide true tax relief, rather than smoke and mirrors. I am particularly pleased with the education tax cut initiatives in the Democratic proposal. If we are truly going to effect positive change in our society and provide our young people the chance to improve our Nation's future, we must provide them with the opportunity to access the best education possible. The Democratic alternative provides more money for the HOPE scholarship, provides incentives for employer-provided education assistance, and provides a source of cost- free capital for desperately needed school construction. At $37 billion worth of tax cuts for education, it provides $15 billion more education initiatives than the Republican plan does. Under the Democratic proposal, HOPE scholarship tax credits are provided at a rate of $1,100 for 1997-99, increasing to $1,500 per student after 2001. The Republican is half this amount at $600 per student. In addition, families could receive the credit for 4 years of postsecondary education, rather than only 2 years as provided in the Republican proposal. In my State of Indiana, $600 does not seem like much in accessing postsecondary education. But if we provide double that amount, it will go a long way in reducing the average cost of education in my district in Indianapolis. At Indiana University-Purdue University of Indianapolis, tuition costs $2,400 a year; at Ivy Tech State College, tuition runs at $1,500 a year. The Democratic HOPE tax credit would provide for nearly 50 percent of the tuition at IUPUI, and nearly all of the cost at Ivy Tech. These are the two largest colleges in my district, with over 23,000 students attending the two institutions. By providing the HOPE scholarship at the levels provided for in the Democratic alternative, we will truly be providing HOPE for many of my constituents. Yet another education related initiative in the Democratic proposal that I applaud is the school construction assistance provision. Schools in my district are dilapidated and crumbling. Indianapolis Public Schools recently approved drastic cuts in programs to rein in spending in their budget. With the Democratic proposal, schools in either empowerment zones or enterprise communities could enter into a partnership with private businesses that would make contributions to school improvements and would issue special bonds to finance school improvements. This would go a long way in communities such as Indianapolis to ensure that our children are not learning in deathtraps, and that we could bring our schools into the 21st century in terms of facilities by the next millennium. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton addressed this body 4 months ago in his State of the Union address. In it, he laid out an ambitious agenda for education which I, along with the majority of Americans, applauded. The President's vision for our young people and ensuring they receive the best education in the world should not be lost in the budget wrangling that occurs in this House. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Democratic alternative to the tax bill and give our working families, especially our children, the break they deserve.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for those very eloquent remarks. Imagine standing here today in support of the House bill, H.R. 1057, as an individual who succeeded Congressman Andy Jacobs out of the 10th Congressional District in the State of Indiana. There is no way that Andy Jacobs can be replaced. As Henry Fonda used to say very profoundly in an advertisement for Andy Jacobs, Andy Jacobs is a Congressman's Congressman. And although I am very proud to have been able to succeed him, as he opened up his seat for election of a new Member to Congress, I say that with a great deal of pride and certainly lament the fact that Congressman Jacobs no longer represents the 10th Congressional District of the State of Indiana. We have heard that Andy Jacobs was in fact in combat as a marine infantryman in the Korean war and let the Treasury Department hold his disability check as he served as a Member of Congress. And we have certainly heard that Andy Jacobs also was Marion County deputy sheriff and that he graduated from law school. Congressman Jacobs was in fact a member of the Committee on the Judiciary that helped to write the historic 1965 Voting Rights act, and I know a lot of my colleagues in Congress would like to be reminded that Andy Jacobs is the one that sponsored legislation that made Father's Day a legal holiday. So, as my colleagues enjoyed their family a couple of days ago under the banner of Father's Day, please know that it was Congressman Andy Jacobs who authored that legislation. Andy Jacobs was the only Indianapolis Congressman in the 20th century to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means where he did chair the Subcommittee on Social Security and the Subcommittee on Health. Andy Jacobs followed in the footsteps of his father, Andy Jacobs, who was also a Member of Congress from the State of Indiana. Andy Jacobs authored ``The Powell Affair: Freedom Minus One,'' because he sat on the Committee on the Judiciary throughout all of those hearings and he tells the story of the ouster of the Harlem Congressman from the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Jacobs retired from Congress in 1996 to spend more time with his lovely wife, Kim Hood Jacobs, and his sons, Andy, Jr., who is 6 years old, as we speak, and Steven, who is 5 years old at this time. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this very worthy and appropriate legislation as a special tribute to the honorable Andy Jacobs who served his country well.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill, the Electric Utility Nitrogen Oxide Limitation Act of 1997. In the current debate concerning the new EPA rulemaking for clean air, I trust that my bill will pass and provide an alternative for Members who want to vote for clean air. My bill will reduce by 55 percent the nitrogen oxide levels emitted by fossil fuel-burning electric utility plants by the year 2000. It sets a simple standard of 0.35 pound per million Btu to be met by the electric utility plants by the end of the year 2000. It will also ensure that electric competition encourages, not discourages, responsible, efficient emission control. It is a bill that is proconsumer and proenvironment. It will ensure competition for utilities, but not at the expense of air quality. This bill will do all of this without amending the Clean Air Act. While the debate rages on concerning EPA rulemaking and the States debate standards that will not be in place until 10 years from now, I encourage my colleagues to join me.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that prior to coming to Congress I heard the eloquent prose from Congress that underscored the need for this country to be en route to supporting policies that enhanced family values and that was cost effective and that would benefit Americans in general. It was a shame, I felt, upon arriving here that the Republicans had proposed to reduce funding for the most vital program affecting families that this country has known, not only vital but very effective, and that was the Women, Infants and Children Program. I joined other colleagues in publicly denouncing that proposal that was designed to impose further pain on this country's children and that was to deny them opportunity for proper nutrition, thus propelling them into other medical problems, such as infant mortality, child anemia, and low-birth weight babies as a result. I want to publicly thank the Republicans for hearing our cry and for hearing our plea and restoring that vital program to its full capacity.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support enthusiastically the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. As he has indicated, building prisons is the fastest growing business in the United States. We are very willing and generously spending money to build new jails and prisons, and we are annihilating any possibility for potential criminals to have an opportunity to be educated. It is my express opinion based on the facts of this bill that we should be earmarking money for prevention and for allowing people access to education. We spend $40,000 a year for one individual in institutionalizing them instead of giving them an educational opportunity.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a brief moment to share my pride and admiration for our Indiana Lt. Governor, Joe Kernan. Today, May 7, marks the 25th anniversary of when Joe Kernan was shot down by the enemy over North Vietnam and held prisoner of war for the succeeding 11 months. Joe Kernan, a 1968 graduate of Notre Dame, had never set foot in Vietnam until he was shot down by the enemy while serving as a Naval flight officer in the Vietnam war. He was repatriated in 1973 and continued on active duty with the Navy until December 1974. The Combat Action Ribbon, two Purple Heart medals, and the Distinguished Flying Cross are among the military awards that the Lieutenant Governor has received. Joe Kernan was elected to the office of mayor of South Bend in 1987. He served as the city's mayor for 9 years, longer than any other mayor in South Bend's history. In 1996, he and Governor Frank O'Bannon were elected to the top two positions in Indiana government. Joe and his wife, Maggie, have a home in South Bend. Twenty-five years today, May 7, 1972, the life of Joe Kernan was turned upside down. He was flying over Vietnam at 4,500 feet, conducting bomb damage assessment, when his plane was hit with anti- aircraft fire. Lest we forget the courageousness and dedication of our Vietnam veterans on behalf of all of us. Lest we forget in the words of Joe Kernan, ``* * * hope and faith played an important role.'' And in recalling the prose of the poet, ``Joe Kernan exemplifies the true meaning of the land of the free, and home of the brave.''

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I too want to commend the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] for having the foresight, the compassion, the sensitivity, and the understanding to offer her amendment. Prior to becoming a Member of the U.S. Congress, I headed a welfare agency in the city of Indianapolis. When I took it over, it had a $20 million deficit. When I left, it had $20 million in the bank. We took care of poor people. We got people off of welfare and put them into jobs and into training and into educational experiences. We did not do that by being cruel. We did not do that by removing a safety net, as this bill would do ultimately; and that is to annihilate the Brooke amendment to raise from $25 to $50 a month the minimum rent that persons would have to pay in public housing. We understand, by virtue of my past experience, that there are a lot of people that are responsible who want to take care of their families but life's circumstances do not allow them temporarily to do that. We should not pass a punitive measure against somebody who finds themselves in circumstances over which they have no control. I support the amendment enthusiastically.

Ms. CARSON

Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a brief moment to share my pride and admiration for our Indiana Lieutenant Governor Joe Kernan. Today, May 7, marks the 25th anniversary when Joe Kernan was shot down by the enemy over North Vietnam and held a prisoner of war for the succeeding 11 months. Joe Kernan, a 1968 graduate of Notre Dame, was sent to Vietnam in 1972 aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, never set foot in Vietnam until his plane, where he was a navigator, was shot down and he was taken a prisoner of war. He was a prisoner of war for 11 months, he was repatriated in 1973 and continued on active duty with the Navy until 1974, December. The Combat Action Ribbon, two Purple Heart medals and the Distinguished Flying Cross are among the military awards that the Lieutenant Governor has received. Mr. Speaker, he is an ordinary man. He worked for Procter and Gamble in Cincinnati. He moved to South Bend where he became mayor and the city's controller. He was elected mayor in 1987, served there 9 years, longer than any other mayor in South Bend's history, and in 1996 he and Gov. Frank O'Bannon were elected to the top posts in Indiana's government. Joe and his wife are natives of South Bend. I just wanted to say today that Joe Kernan exemplifies what the court envisioned in that he is at the home of the brave at the land of the free.

Mrs. CARSON

Mrs. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, Indianapolis lost one of its outstanding citizens last Tuesday. He was Roger Brown, the first player ever signed to the Indiana Pacers and a pillar of the Indianapolis community following his basketball career. A graduate of the University of Dayton, Mr. Brown was the third all- time leading scorer for the Pacers, scoring 10,058 points over his career in the American Basketball Association. Had it not been for a gambling scandal during his college career, which he was cleared of, Roger (The Rajah) Brown would be in basketball's Hall of Fame. Those who saw him play consider him one of the best to play the game. Oscar Robertson, himself a NBA star and a native of Indianapolis, advised the Pacer organization to seek out Brown in the early 1970's and sign him to the team. Yet Mr. Brown was not merely one of the best to play the game. He also contributed much to his inherited community of Indianapolis. He served as a city-county councilman and worked with local law enforcement officials to improve Indianapolis' streets and help protect our young people. The community remembered him for this as well. When Mr. Brown was diagnosed with cancer of the liver, he was faced with mounting medical bills due to his lack of medical coverage. The community of Indianapolis chipped in, with teammates, fans, and local businesses helping the Rajah pay for his medical care. Perhaps the most poignant testimony of Roger Brown was his statement after learning about his cancer. ``If I was to die tomorrow, I've lived a hell of a life,'' said Mr. Brown. ``I've dealt with my mortality. I did that coming out of Brooklyn, because you don't know if you're going to make it to the next day. The quality of life is what's important, because everybody's got to go.'' Mr. Speaker, perhaps this body could learn a little from Roger Brown, a person who lived his life unassumingly but understood that in the end, it was the value of a life well-lived that mattered the most. For Mr. Brown, we should continue to look for ways to ensure that all have the quality of life they deserve. In the words of Pacers coach Larry Brown, ``we have lost a good friend.''

Mrs. CARSON

Mrs. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus for allowing me this opportunity. In celebration of Black History Month, there are literally hundreds of individuals from the past that could be remembered for their achievements for African-Americans. The one I would like to remember today was once a member of this auspicious body, and her work in this Chamber will be remembered throughout history for its honesty and integrity. Barbara Jordan has often been described as having ``the voice of God,'' one which could shake the rafters if necessary, and one which always weaved a sense of urgency through an audience. Yet Ms. Jordan's legacy lies far beyond her oratorical skills. Her reputation will be one of a role-model for her devotion to public service, her unabashed faith in the Constitution, and her ethical fortitude which is all too rare in today's political climate. In the summer of 1974, our democracy faced its greatest test, and our Constitution its greatest challenge. As the House Judiciary Committee considered the fate of President Nixon during the Watergate hearings, it was a young African-American woman from Houston, TX, that pointed the way through the fog of the time to the correct path to pursue. Representative Jordan stated in plain language that no one, not even the President, was above the law of the land. Her faith in the Constitution, she said, remained strong despite the fact the Founding Fathers did not originally include her in their definition of ``we the people.'' Subsequently, during one of our Nation's darkest hours, Ms. Jordan helped restore our faith in the foundations of democracy and carried us forward to form a more perfect union. Following her service in Congress, Ms. Jordan began a second tier of public service by teaching public affairs at the University of Texas. Despite the fact that her body was crippled by multiple sclerosis, her spirit and her mind grew stronger. For over a decade, she taught students at the University of Texas a class on ethics which demanded students search their souls for the answers to tough dilemmas. Ms. Jordan's class was extremely popular despite the difficult reputation it gained, requiring a lottery each semester to select the handful of students to have the honor of taking Ms. Jordan's class. Thus, Ms. Jordan carried on the task of teaching the lessons of citizenship to another generation, and preparing our young people to carry out the tasks so vital to our democracy. Barbara Jordan passed away a little over a year ago. Her reputation will precede her for years to come. It is important to remember Ms. Jordan today and always as not only a great African-American, but as one of the central figures in American history in the late 20th century. As we took towards the next millennium, with the need for racial harmony and the collective healing of our wounds as tantamount as ever, it is imperative that we look towards the example Barbara Jordan set for all of us. Her standards may have been high on the bar, but they were nonetheless the measuring stick we should all aspire to reach. She defined what it means to be an American for many of us, and her accomplishments will not soon be forgotten.