Jim Clyburn

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] for his statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute this evening to one of our Nation's greatest civil rights leaders: Arnold Aronson. Arnold Aronson has been active in civil rights for nearly 60 years. In 1941, he, along with A. Philip Randolph, mobilized a campaign that led to President Roosevelt's Executive order which banned discrimination on the basis of race, creed or national origin in war- related industries. This Executive order established the first Fair Employment Practice Committee. In 1941, Mr. Aronson headed the Bureau of Jewish Employment Problems, a one-person agency located in Chicago. Discrimination against Jews at that time was overt and widespread. Help wanted ads specifying gentile only were commonplace, and employment agencies accepted and filled orders in accordance with such specifications. Rather than attempting to deal with the problem as it affected Jews alone, he decided to attack employment discrimination per se, no matter the victim. Accordingly, he organized the Chicago Council Against Religious and Racial Discrimination, a coalition of religious, labor, ethnic, civil rights and social welfare organizations. As council secretary, Arnold Aronson directed the campaign that led to the first municipal Fair Employment Practices Commission in the Nation. In 1943, he organized a statewide coalition, the Illinois Fair Employment Council, and initiated the campaign for a State FEP legislation. In 1945, he became program director of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, a coalition of national and local Jewish agencies. He developed policies and programs for Jewish agency involvement on issues of civil rights, civil liberties, immigration reform, church and State separation, Soviet Jewish immigration and support for Israel. In 1946, Arnold Aronson became secretary of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC, a coalition which was headed by A. Philip Randolph, and together they directed campaigns for Federal civil rights legislation in the 79th and 80th Congresses. In 1949, he became the secretary of the National Emergency Civil Rights Mobilization, which was chaired by Roy Wilkins, and together they organized a lobby in support of President Truman's proposed civil rights program. Around this same time, Mr. Speaker, Arnold Aronson and a few men, a small group, set out to professionalize people who were working in civil rights and allied fields by establishing the National Association of Intergroup Relations Officials. The name of that group has since been changed, and today it is called the National Association of Human Rights Workers. Arnold Aronson held many offices in that organization, including a term as president. In fact, it is my great honor to have been one of his successor presidents in this organization, and I was pleased to meet with them in Shreveport, LA, 3 weeks ago, and look forward to their annual meeting in October of this year. During Arnold Aronson's term as president, he established the Journal of Intergroup Relations, which continues to the present time and is an organization to which I very often contribute. Mr. Speaker, I think that Arnold Aronson's lasting legacy, although he has been involved in every major civil rights effort in this century, is his enduring legacy with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights which he cofounded with NAACP President Roy Wilkins. In 1950, he and Mr. Wilkins convened over 4,000 delegates from all over the country to urge the Congress to enact employment, antidiscrimination, and antilynching laws. Along with Martin Luther King, Jr., Arnold Aronson was one of the 10 organizers of the 1963 March on Washington. During the Leadership Conference's first 13 years, Arnold Aronson served as its secretary and directed the day-to-day operations of the organization. Along with NAACP Washington bureau director Clarence Mitchell, Aronson and the Leadership Conference coordinated the successful lobbying efforts which resulted in the passage of the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Arnold Aronson's lasting legacy, I believe, is summed up in a quote of his, and I would like to quote it. Arnold Aronson once wrote: The struggle of civil rights cannot be won by any one group acting by or for itself alone, but only through a coalition of groups that share a common commitment to equal justice and equal opportunity for every American. Mr. Speaker, Arnold Aronson's life is a model for us all. I consider it a privilege to have known him and to have worked with him. I am honored to join with my colleagues this evening in saluting this giant on today, his 86th birthday. Happy birthday, Arnold Aronson, and we thank you. Mr. Speaker, joining with me in this special order this evening are Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Congressman John Lewis. It is my pleasure at this time, Mr. Speaker, to yield to Congressman John Lewis.

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include therein extraneous material on the subject of my special order this evening.

Mr. CLYBURN

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

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, 2 years and you are out is not a bad proposition in and of itself, but in this bill it relies on that tried-and-true adage if you give a man a fish you may feed him for a day, if you teach a man how to fish he may feed himself for a lifetime. In this bill, Mr. Speaker, only 50 percent of those 2-years-and-you- are-outers can reasonably expect any chance at training. In this era of personal responsibility, this legislation asks our most vulnerable citizens to do more, but our States are being required to do less. Mr. Speaker, this is not the best we can do, and it is not the best we can afford. I urge a no vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference agreement. Being a slightly better option than the House passed version of the bill does not mean this is a good piece of legislation. Welfare should be a temporary transition from welfare to work. Unfortunately this is 1996, an election year, and we have entered the ``silly season.'' Rather than being a constructive debate, the welfare reform debate has become, for the most part silly talk of budgetary savings and time limits--not helping those in need of assistance learn how to help themselves. I think the designers of this legislation have forgotten a valuable lesson: If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day but if you teach that man how to fish, he can feed himself for a lifetime. This conference report would consist of a check for 2 years and then a requirement for work programs for only 50 percent of families receiving welfare payments--6 years from now. The Republicans have forgotten the parable about feeding a family for a lifetime but instead have decided that it is much cheaper to write a check to a welfare family than provide the necessary training to ensure that another check never has to be written to that family. And under the guise of welfare reform even these checks are becoming smaller. Under the House passed version of this conference agreement the average annual cut per food stamp household in South Carolina would be $265, and this cut would grow to $394 by 2002. Under the Senate version of the bill, food stamp households in South Carolina stand to lose even more. While it is not clear what the actual cut would be for South Carolina families under the conference agreement, it is clear that my State's most vulnerable households would be between the proverbial rock and a hard place with little or no hope of any training to help them lift themselves permanently out of poverty. With the talk of personal responsibility being tossed around, I find it ironic that at the same time our Nation's most vulnerable families are being required to do more for themselves, our States are being asked to do even less. In this conference agreement, unlike the Tanner-Castle substitute bill I supported earlier this month, States are required to spend only 75 percent of what they spent in 1994 in return for a block grant check from the Federal Government. At the same time, it is projected that as a result of this legislation 8,170 children in my state of South Carolina will be pushed into pvoerty. I urge my colleagues not to support this agreement. Although it may be the lesser of two evils, it is not the best we can do nor is it the best we can afford to do.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman very much, my good friend Mr. Fields from Louisiana. Thank you, first of all, for your kind words. I am pleased to hear them and I hope that I continue to earn them. Second, let me thank the gentleman for organizing this special order. I think that your work chairing the Task Force on Church Burnings for the Congressional Black Caucus is work that is to be commended and I thank you so much for brining us all here this evening. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this special order. Let me begin my comments by first of all congratulating the people of South Carolina, Williamsburg County, Greeleyville. As you may recall, this past Tuesday evening, I traveled to South Carolina where on Wednesday morning I went with President Clinton to visit the Greeleyville community, the community that suffered a church burning on June 20 of last year. On Wednesday, we met at the site of a new church. On this coming Saturday, 360 days after their church was burned to the ground, the people of Greeleyville, the members of Mount Zion AME Church, their pastor, Reverend Terrence Mackey, will all gather at the site of the old church and they will march one mile to the new church. I think that the people of that community, black and white, have demonstrated to all of us what can be done and what should be done in responding to these kinds of vitriolic actions. I am very pleased with their demonstration of cooperation. Earlier this evening I heard one of our colleagues talk about the difficulty that a community is having rebuilding a church that was burned. I thought as he spoke of the people in this little town in the poorest county in South Carolina, how they all banded together, irrespective of skin color, irrespective of hair texture, and they all came together to make sure that they demonstrate to the rest of the world how we ought to conduct ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I know that the time is late and I think my time is running out, but I want to say one thing in order to make my point. Many of you may recall that Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 issued a letter from the Birmingham City Jail, a letter that spoke to the question of time and the neutrality of time. King admonished us in that letter that we are going to be called to repent in this generation not just for the vitriolic words and actions of bad people but for the appalling silence of good people. I want to say to all the Members of the body and the people of our great Nation that these vitriolic actions may be bad but it is just as bad for us to remain silent. So I want all of us to speak up and speak out and make sure that we do so in such a way that the people who perpetrate these vitriolic acts will be driven back under the rocks from which they came and hopefully we, the good people of our Nation, can march forward together. I thank the gentleman so much for letting me be a part of this special order.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Sylvia Lewis Parks on the occasion of her retirement from Richland County School District One after 38 years of dedicated and unselfish service to the children of Columbia, SC. Mrs. Parks joined the school system in 1958 as an elementary school teacher, where she quickly earned a reputation for her superior and innovative teaching style. After just over a decade of classroom teaching, Mrs. Parks began the first of numerous increasingly important positions within the school system, eventually becoming one of the top administrators in the entire system. Some of these positions were: Title One Coordinator; Director of Federal Programs; Executive Director for Development Programs; Executive Director for Development and Planning; and, Acting Associate Superintendent for Elementary Education. Mrs. Parks' most recent position has been Executive Director for Elementary School Services. In addition to her work with Richland District One, Mrs. Parks has been a consultant to school districts and educational associations across the country including: the U.S. Department of Education, Seattle, WA, Public Schools, the Oklahoma City Schools, and the Fayetteville, NC, School District. She has been a presenter at the Overseas School-to-School Partnership in Gabon and Cameroon, West Africa, the South Carolina Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals, and the South Carolina Education Association. While keeping a very busy professional schedule, Mrs. Parks has always generously found time to serve her community and to improve the lives of the world at large. She has been a member of the board of directors of the United Black Fund, the Columbia Urban League, and the Midlands Marine Institute. She previously served as president of the Richland County Chapter of the Assault on Illiteracy Program and was a member of the South Carolina Coalition of Blacks and Jews, the Community Relations Council, the Seven-Thirty Breakfast Club, and the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce. She is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and a former member of Jack and Jill of America, Inc. Despite the numerous demands on her time, Mrs. Parks has always found time for her family. She is a dedicated wife, mother, and grandmother. She is a friendly neighbor and a warm smile to all who meet her. Over the years, she has served as a mentor to legions of students, teachers, and school administrators. Mrs. Parks is a dedicated member of the St John Baptist Church, where she has been a member of numerous committees and organizations. Mr. Speaker, Sylvia Parks is a true Renaissance woman. I am proud to represent her in the Congress. While she will be missed at Richland School District One, I am sure her dedication and untiring devotion to our children will never end. I ask that you and the other Members of the House join me in saluting Mrs. Sylvia Lewis Parks as her family, friends, and colleagues gather to celebrate her retirement on Saturday, May 25, 1996, at the Clarion Townhouse in Columbia, SC.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I regret the crash of ValuJet flight 592 was the catalyst for renewed attention on airline safety. However, I hope that a productive dialog on the future safety of the aviation industry will result from this tragedy. For me, a similar tragedy brought home the need for greater air safety measures. July 4th weekend, 1994, a USAir flight that originated in my hometown, of Columbia, SC, crashed just outside of Charlotte, NC. Several of my constituents were among the victims. That single event heightened my awareness of aviation safety concerns and prompted me to begin a search for solutions. That search led me to the first step of what I believe is the long journey to restoring public confidence in air travel--the enactment of the Aviation Safety Protection Act of 1996 (H.R. 3187). I introduced this legislation on March 28 to provide whistle-blower protection for airline employees who supply information to the Federal Government relating to air safety. The intent of this legislation is to encourage airline employees to become actively involved in the safety of airline passengers and to feel free to come forward if they believe that safety is being jeopardized due to negligence or oversight. The same job protections afforded to most of the work force should be extended to the airline industry, especially since lives are at stake. Under the legislation, an employee who believes he or she has been fired or otherwise retaliated against for reporting air safety violations may file a complaint with the U.S. Secretary of Labor. If the employee's claim is found to be valid he or she would be entitled to reinstatement and compensatory damages. On the other hand, if the Secretary of Labor determines that the complaint has been filed frivolously, the offending employee will be required to pay up to $5,000 of the employer's legal fees. This is an issue of safety and fairness. The Aviation Safety Protection Act of 1996 will provide security for airline employees who may be afraid to report safety violations for fear of losing their jobs and the income they need to support their families. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration has recently recognized the need to require the same safety standards for commuter airlines as for major carriers. Commuter planes carry an estimated 60 million passengers annually. With the tremendous growth of commuter flights in recent years, we must do everything we can to ensure the safety of those passengers. Due to the growing competitiveness among airlines, the number of aircraft of all sizes that have entered the market is growing exponentially. At the same time, the limited FAA budget is already strapped. The Aviation Safety Protection Act would enable airline employees to aid the FAA in ensuring air travel remains safe without fear of reprisal. The checkered safety record of ValuJet Airlines is just now coming to light. One can only wonder if this tragedy could have been prevented if an employee had come forward earlier to report safety concerns. In light of this American tragedy, I urge Congress to expedite approval of the Aviation Safety Protection Act, so that we can begin to rebuild the public's confidence in our aviation industry.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I first met Ron Brown in the late 1960s, when all of us were all about trying to find a way to get ourselves and those people that we represented into the mainstream of American activity. I grew to admire and respect him, and there was something about Ron that compelled him to bring along with him all of the young talent that he could muster in order to demonstrate to our great Nation the talent that was there for those who, given the opportunity, could make significant contribution. That to me is the real legacy of Ron Brown. One of these young talents was the granddaughter of my doctor when I lived in Charleston, Jerry Irving Hoffman, in the late 1960's and early 1970's. And I want to join today with everybody in paying homage to that great spirit that Ron Brown gave to all with whom he came in contact. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday before last, as I sat in the home of Mr. Brown sharing with his wife Alma, his son Michael and his daughter Tracey, other family members and friends, hoping against hope that something, some good news would come of this event, as we sat there, watching the television, something occurred that stays with me to this day. And it is what I would like to share with all Americans today. There came to the camera a gentleman, I think he was from northern Virginia, who did not make the trip, a CEO who spoke to the world on the fact that for some reason, though he was scheduled to be on the trip, he did not make the trip. And he asked a very cogent question, and I think all of us ought to ask ourselves today, he said that he must now find out why the good Lord saw fit to keep him here. It is his job now to find out exactly what it is that the good Lord would have him do. I think that is something that all of us who call ourselves public servants ought to be thinking about today. We are left here; we can speak of Ron Brown's legacy. We can pay homage to all that his life meant. But I think throughout it all we ought to ask ourselves the question now, what it is that the good master would have us do. I would hope that as we go about trying to fulfill the dreams and aspirations of Ron Brown and others like him that we will keep in mind the hope and the aspirations that he gave to so many and the hope and aspirations that so many are still left looking to us to help fulfill for their futures.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate those Members of the Republican Party for their foresight and fortitude in coming forward at this time with this CR, but it is more like a partial plan rather than a full plan. Of course, there are times when a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. However, there are times when going halfway can be very, very dangerous, especially for those people who go to work every day. What we are doing this with is allowing people to go back to work, yet we are leaving them exposed to hazardous conditions because we are not allowing the EPA to its work. We are saying to people who are exposed to safety problems on highway contracts that you can work but the OSHA people will not be allowed to check for safety standards. I believe that what we are doing here is in fact exposing working people to some untenable situations. So I would say that what we ought to be doing is looking at how we cannot just go halfway but go all the way in making sure that people do not only work but are safe when they carry out their duties and responsibilities.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me to participate in this special order, and I thank him for organizing this special order this evening. As the gentleman has mentioned, it is my great honor and privilege to serve in this body from the State of South Carolina, and to be here tonight to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Joseph Hayne Rainey's swearing in as a Member of this body is a great honor for me. As was mentioned, Mr. Rainey was born in Georgetown, SC, though he made the bulk of his political life, at least it started in Charleston, where he moved to work as a barber and there entered political life. Now, much has been said about Mr. Rainey's early life, but let me say just a little bit about him that has not been said thus far. When Mr. Rainey took the position, of course he was elected to the State senate in 1870. And, of course, later that same year, he opted to fill an unexpired term in the Congress; and of course, when he came here, he came to represent what was then the First Congressional District, including Charleston and Georgetown, all the way up to Florence. The First District at that time was much like what is now the Sixth Congressional District that I am proud to represent. Now, Mr. Rainey served for a little over 8 years. During this period, he served longer than any of the other, up until that time, people of color in the House of Representatives. Having been elected in 1870, he staying until around 1879. Now it is kind of interesting when we look at Mr. Rainey's service. He was, of course, the first of eight African-Americans to serve during this period from 1870 to 1897. The last in that period was George Washington Murray. And when George Washington Murray left in 1897, no other person of color represented the State of South Carolina in this body until January, 1993, when it was my privilege to take the oath some 95 years later. In 1993, the people of Georgetown honored Mr. Rainey by naming a park in the city for him and erecting in that park a bust of Mr. Rainey. And it was my pleasure to go to Georgetown and to be the keynoter for that occasion, and I am proud of the people of Georgetown for paying that honor, some 123 years after Mr. Rainey took the oath of office. And, of course, we are here tonight on the 125th anniversary to add to the honor. If we were to look at Mr. Rainey's service, we have to look to the future, I would hope, We know a bit from 1870 to now, 1995, 125 years, there was not continuous service. As I stated earlier, Mr. George Washington Murray left in 1897 and, of course, he was the last from South Carolina until I came along. Of course, in 1901, George White of North Carolina left and then no one of color served in this body until the 1920's, when there was a representative, Mr. De Priest, if my memory serves me well, elected from the State of Illinois. Now, Mr. Speaker, I mention the State of Illinois here tonight because I think it helps to make my point. As we talk a little bit about the future, I used to teach history in the public schools of Charleston. I still love to read history. I would like to play interesting games with myself, as I go through history. I want to share with my brethren here this evening and other brothers and sisters who may be watching a little bit of what I feel about what went on during the time Mr. Rainey was elected and served and what has gone on today. There is some interesting similarities. If we are to take note of recent developments, we know that just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to argument over questions involving congressional districts and whether or not the drawing of congressional districts for the 1992 elections was unconstitutional or, I guess to put it in the positive, whether or not these congressional districts were constitutional. Of course, that hearing last week was precipitated by a decision a year ago by the Supreme Court concerning a case coming out of North Carolina, commonly referred to as Shaw versus Reno, at which time the Court said that the districts drawn in North Carolina were dissolved. It was kind of interesting that for the first time in the history of the country the Court decided that the esthetics of a congressional district would bring into question the constitutionality of those districts. Until that time, no one had ever worried about what shape a district had. We had always left it up to the States to determine how all this was done. Of course, by constitutional edict, by the court's edict, we have said that political considerations could be taken into account, incumbency could be taken into account, communities of interest, all these things could be taken into account. But all of a sudden, of course, I do not think the court has ever spoken to this, but we all know that in many communities around the country, even religion has been sued in order to determine how lines have been drawn. The interesting thing about all of this is that, and I would hope that a bit of guidance could be gotten from the Court on this, because if you look at what was going on in 1870, I want to, I do not like to deal with numbers too much. Most people who are lovers of history do not like to deal with numbers. We tend to try to deal with facts and ideas. But in 1870, at the time Mr. Rainey was elected from South Carolina, there were 415,814 blacks living in South Carolina. Only 289,667 whites lived in South Carolina in 1870 at the time Mr. Rainey was elected. There is something very interesting about all of this. When the elections for the general assembly were over that year, as I just said, it was in this year that Mr. Rainey was also elected to the State senate. Serving the State senate at that time you only had 31 State senators. Twenty-one of them were white and only 10 were black. Now, not only was the population almost better than 3 to 2 black to white, the registered voters were 3 to 2 black to white. Yet those majority black people elected two-thirds of the senate to be white. Now, of course, in the lower body, the House of Representatives, it was reversed. There were 72 blacks serving in the House elected in 1870 and 48 whites. Now, the reason I point this out is because those people, the majority of the general assembly being people of color, decided that they did not want, for whatever reason, to run roughshod over the rights of their white counterparts and so they put in place a system of voting designed to protect the rights of their fellow South Carolinians who happened to have been white. They used a system called cumulative voting. That system was put in place and it stayed in place from 1870 until 1879. They got rid of cumulative voting in 1879, after the State officials prevailed upon then the President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes, to take the Federal troops out of the South and then, according to one writer, who I cannot recall the name of at the moment, but I remember this phrase very well in my study of history, one writer said, Ratherford B. Hayes took the Federal troops out of the South and then left the quote unquote Negro up to the creative devices of white South Carolinians, creative devices. Sounds like dissolved to me. Well, what happened, through threats, intimidation, through things like poll taxes, literacy tests, they were successful in then rendering black South Carolinians almost voteless. So when Mr. Rainey left in, I believe, March of 1879, it started a domino effect and by 1897, some 18 years later, no other person of color was left to serve in the Congress and, of course, the same year, 1901, that George White left the Congress from North Carolina, a Mr. Bolt, I believe his name was, B-O-L-T, I think was his name, from Georgetown, became the last person of color to serve in the South Carolina general assembly. Having then not only put these new systems in place, they also then, in 1896, wrote a new constitution for South Carolina. Of course, with that they put in place systems of voting that made it impossible for people of color to elect their choices to serve in the body. Now, cumulative voting is a very interesting concept. It was not just used in South Carolina. It was born in South Carolina. South Carolina was the first State to usher this system on the scene. I believe Horace Greeley of New York initiated cumulative voting for the State of New York. At that time it had nothing to do with race. It had to do with Tammany Hall. Republicans could not get elected because the Democrats around the city of New York controlled Tammany Hall and, of course, they had locked everybody else out. So Mr. Greeley came up with the concept of cumulative voting around 1870. It failed. He came back, I think in 1872, and this time, using a system they called, we would now call it proportional representation, they, which is a form of cumulative voting, it does not accumulate, but it is a different form of single member districts, it was successful and New York used that system at least in its lower body. It did not use it in the Senate, but they used it in, they did not call it the house of delegates at that time, it was the lower body, the general assembly. That was not the only State. Illinois used cumulative voting. The interesting thing about Illinois is that Illinois used it because what they found in Illinois was that if you were in the northern part of Illinois, the Democrats controlled. In the southern part of Illinois, the Republicans controlled or vice versa. Do not hold me to which was which. My memory is not that good this evening. But it was divided. In other words, there was never any kind of interaction between the rural part of Illinois and that part of Illinois that was urban and, therefore, you had this polarized voting in the general assembly that had nothing to do with race. So they decided that the best way to approach that was to use the system called cumulative voting. So Illinois put cumulative voting in place in 1870, and it stayed in place until 1979. They did not get rid of cumulative voting in Illinois until 15 years ago. Now, I am pointing all this out tonight because when Mr. Rainey served in the State Senate of South Carolina, just a few months before coming to this body, he was part of a process that looked for methods beyond winner-take-all elections in order to ensure adequate representation and fairness toward the white South Carolinians. And I tonight believe that it is time for us in this body, in the courts, everywhere else, to begin to look for methods to ensure representation and fairness to the people of color who now represent the minority in these areas. Winner-take-all elections say by their very nature that 49 percent may not ever have their voices heard or their wishes addressed, if you continue on our present course. So I want to say to you, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, my good friend from New Jersey, that I am appreciative of the fact that you have allowed me to participate here this evening because I think it is important for us to look at the historical context, not just of Mr. Rainey's election to this body but also what was going on in the country at the time of his election and how magnanimous he and other people of color were. Before I yield back my time, let me explain what this cumulative voting is all about, because some people seem to think it is something very strange. If I might use what they did in, I think it was Illinois, maybe it was New York, where they used three-member districts. They had legislative districts. Three members from each legislative district. What you do is that every voter gets three votes. That voter can give all three of his or her votes to one of the members, or can give one-and-a-half to two, or could give one vote to each of the three members in the district. And what they have found, as they found in Peoria, IL, where they use that today, they found it in Texas today, they found it in New Mexico, where they use it there, that it works. It allows everybody to participate. I will tell you something else it does: It brings people to the polls, because when people feel they are outnumbered in these single member districts, they do not participate, because they do not think they have any chance to win. But when you go to these other methods, it allows for significant participation on the part of voters. So, I think, as was said here earlier tonight as a part of some other discussions, that there are some things happening in our country today indicating that voters are polarized, that citizens are polarized, political parties are polarized, and we, the people of good will, ought to begin to look at our history a little bit, and hopefully learn from that history, and maybe we can find from the history some ways to bring our people together, as Mr. Rainey and his cohorts did, on behalf of the protection of white South Carolinians and white Americans throughout New York, Illinois and other States, back in the 1870's and just after Reconstruction. So I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Gabriel J. Batarseh of Florence, SC, for his dedication to serving his fellow citizens both publicly, through his professional career, and privately through the work he has done in his community. Dr. Batarseh is a native of Bethlehem. He graduated from the Middle East College in Lebanon and received a masters degree and a doctorate of educational psychology from the University of South Carolina in 1964. Since then, Dr. Batarseh has unselfishly dedicated his life to enriching the lives of people with disabilities and their families in the State of South Carolina. He currently serves as director of the Pee Dee region in the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs. Dr. Batarseh is retiring after 30 years of public service. Dr. Batarseh's career has spanned many years. In 1966, he implemented all programmatic, educational, and cottage life services for the South Carolina Retarded Children's Habilitation Center, which is today known as Coastal Center in Ladson. Two years later, he opened the first South Carolina group home in Charleston. Since 1977, Dr. [[Page E 2026]] Batarseh has been working for the citizens with mental retardation and their families in the Pee Dee region of South Carolina to provide them with specialized programs and services. As superintendent of the Pee Dee Center in Florence, he reintegrated hundreds of residents in to prosperous lives in their home communities, while providing support mechanisms to enhance the lifestyles of remaining residents. Over the years, Dr. Batarseh has not only modernized the Pee Dee Center, but he also initiated a number of novel services for people with mental retardation. He guided staff to provide early intervention training at home, encouraged the involvement of schools and families, and helped establish mental retardation boards in local communities to ensure people received the services they require. Moreover, Dr. Batarseh has demonstrated his commitment to the community beyond his professional career. He is a very active member of All Saints Episcopal Church, where he has served as a warden and a lay reader. He was also a volunteer coach for the Family Y League and the Florence Soccer League for several years. Dr. Batarseh is married to the former Lillian McCarter of Clover, SC. They have three children: Leila, Mark, and Matthew. Mr. Speaker, I join the South Carolina Commission on Disabilities and Special Needs to praise the work of Dr. Batarseh and salute the sacrifices he has made for the benefit of mentally retarded citizens and their families in the State of South Carolina. I am honored to represent such a citizen as Dr. Gabriel Batarseh in the Sixth Congressional District of South Carolina, and I hope you will join me in honoring this fine American.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a bit of debate in recent weeks over Medicare and then $270 billion cut that we are proposing to make in Medicare. Of course every time I begin discussion of this with various people, I am asked time and time again to give the difference in what we are talking about as we talk about part A and part B. I want to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to talk about those two separate parts, to explain the difference so that people out there listening will get an idea of what we are talking about, because it is very important for them to understand that all of this debate that we are undertaking here sometimes has very little to do with what really ails them. Medicare has two separate parts, Medicare part A and Medicare part B. Medicare part A is the Medicare hospital insurance program which mostly covers inpatient hospital stays. Medicare part A is financed through the Medicare trust fund. Like Social Security, employers and workers pay into the Medicare trust fund while an individual is working through a dedicated payroll tax, a 1.45-percent tax paid by employers and a 1.45-percent tax paid by workers. Medicare part B is the Medicare medical insurance program which covers such other medical services as doctor services, hospital outpatient services, clinical, laboratories, and durable medical equipment. Medicare part B is financed in a completely different way than Medicare part A. Medicare part B is financed through a combination of premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries and general revenue. As we listen to all this debate about insolvency, the American public must understand that it is only the Medicare part A trust fund that faces an insolvency problem in the year 2002. However, we recently heard from the administrator of this program that the insolvency problem could be solved with a modification or a correction or a reform, if you would like to call it that, of $89 billion. That would keep this program solvent through the year 2002. We must then ask the question, if the administrator says that that is all that is required, why then are we pushing $270 billion in modifications to this program? I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing that simply to cover the cost of this $240 billion tax cut that we are proposing to give to those who do not need it. In fact, the bulk of that tax cut will go to people who make over $100,000 a year, most of whom that I talk to as I visit my district tell me they are not asking for a tax cut, they do not need a tax cut, and they do not want a tax cut. So, then, why are we doing it? There are two things being lost in all of this. One, of course, is Medicaid, a $182 billion cut in Medicaid, programs for the poor. What is going to happen when we undertake that cut? Well, it means that a lot of people who today find themselves using services like stays-in-homes are going to find themselves without the ability to do that, and that means that many young couples, young families, are going to find themselves hard-pressed to take care of the elderly when the Government gets out of that business. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time offered me, and I want to say that I hope, as we go forward with this debate, that we will continue to educate the American people as to the difference between part A and part B.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage with congressional actions which discourage minority ownership of telecommunications businesses, while at the same time letting stand tax laws which encourage ownership among white owned entities. In February, this body voted to kill a Federal program that provided tax breaks to companies that sell broadcast stations and cable TV systems to minorities. These actions were spurred by Viacom Inc.'s proposed $2.3 billion sale of its cable TV systems to a group led by an African-American entrepreneur. The Federal Communications Commission minority tax certificate program allowed companies that sold to minority buyers to defer capital gains taxes on sales of radio and TV stations and cable systems. The program was designed to encourage such sales and to broaden minority ownership in an industry that is overwhelmingly dominated by whites. The tax certificate program was established in 1978 and had been supported through four administrations, both Democratic and Republican. It was responsible for a fivefold increase in the minority ownership of broadcast properties. Even with that success, however, minorities represent only 3 percent of the industry's ownership today. In this deal, Viacom would have been entitled to defer paying more than $400 million in taxes under the program. While the program involved tax deferment, Viacom still would have been liable for the $400 million in taxes at a later date. It would have had to reduce the amount by which it could write off other assets in the future. The U.S. Treasury would have eventually received these moneys and a single African-American would have become a small player in the telecommunications arena. By repealing the minority tax certificate program, the Congress sent a strong message that it has no interest in increasing minority ownership in the cable and TV industry. Mr. Speaker, most interestingly, Viacom did eventually sell its cable division to a company known as Tele-Communications Inc. Under obscure tax provisions, this deal enables Viacom to avoid capital-gains taxes. This new deal means that Viacom will escape capital-gains taxes altogether. Its an even better deal than the sale to the minority buyer. The message this scenario sends to the American people is that it is okay for sellers such as Viacom to benefit from the Tax Code when the buyers are white, but not OK when the buyers are African-American or other minorities. True, Congress closed what has commonly been called the minority tax certificate ``loophole.'' However, after these latest transactions, neither Viacom nor Tele-Communications has suffered. In fact, they both have benefitted by the shrewd use of the Tax Code. Minorities, on the other hand, are discouraged, and to some degree even prohibited, from seeking ownership of telecommunications entities. Shame on this Congress. There is much work to do.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to this rule. Once again, the Republican leadership has crafted a closed rule. Call it what they may, but where I come from there is nothing open about limiting both the time for debate and the amendments to be considered. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will affect the lives of nearly every American and is far too important to be subjected to a closed rule. H.R. 1555 would make it possible for one entity to own all the radio stations, newspapers, 2 TV stations, and even the local cable and telephone companies in the same media market. So the same bill which seeks to end local telephone monopolies would allow a handful of media magnates to drive smaller competitors from the market and put an end to broadcast diversity. But an amendment to maintain current law regarding broadcast ownership was not made in order. And what about the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership? For months they have been telling us that State and local governments are better equipped to make decisions affecting local residents, but this bill preempts local zoning authority with regard to the placement of antenna towers. Yet, an amendment to restore local authority was not ruled in order. I find it hard to believe that the Republican leadership is willing to rely on our State governments to solve this Nation's welfare crisis but does not trust local authorities to regulate the placement of cellular telephone antennas. I would like to urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Lela Haynes Session for her many years of service to the people of Berkeley County and the State of South Carolina. Dr. Session was born in Moncks Corner, SC, to the late Mr. and Mrs. David Haynes. She was educated in the public schools of Charleston and Berkeley Counties and later received her bachelor of science degree from Allen University and master of science degree from South Carolina State University. Dr. Session furthered her studies at North Carolina College, Duke University, Tuskegee Institute, and Union Baptist Seminary. She has also been awarded an honorary doctor of humane letters. During her 28 years with the Berkely County Schools, Dr. Session served as supervisor of elementary education, supervisor of adult education, director of retirement, and director of teacher welfare, personnel division. Dr. Session has a long, impressive history of involvement in extracurricular and community activities, starting at Allen University in the early 1940's. While completing her undergraduate degree at Allen, she found time to participate in the drama club and the college choir. Dr. Session's leadership skills were evident in roles such as president of the Y.W.C.A., treasurer of Sunday school, and school nurse. Endowed with a commitment to helping others and a keen sense of the need to improve quality of community life, Dr. Session's work epitomizes the motto, ``Build Your Community, Build The World.'' She devotes her time, energy, and talents to a variety of civic and professional activities. Some of these activities include: State delegate to the National Democratic Convention, vice president of the Moncks Corner Precinct Democratic Party, president of the Berkeley County Habitat for Humanity, Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Trident United Way, National Education Association, and the National Council of Negro Women. Dr. Session is a longtime member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church where she serves as a trustee and stewardess. She has served as a consultant for the Lay Organization of the 7th Episcopal District, director of public relations for the Connectional Lay Organization, Young People Director, and Educational Worker of the Women's Missionary Society. Mr. Speaker, I commend Dr. Lela Haynes Session for a lifetime of dedicated service to the people of Berkeley County and the State of South Carolina and join her family and friends in saluting her on September 2, 1995 at the Oaks Country Club in Goose Creek, SC.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Zelmar Stevenson Gordon as she celebrates her retirement from Browne Junior High School in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Gordon was born in Florence, SC, to the late Rev. Leo T. Stevenson and Mrs. Utensile Jackson Stevenson. She was educated in the Florence County public schools and later received her bachelor of science degree from Savannah State College. Mrs. Gordon continued her post graduate studies at the University of the District of Columbia. Mrs. Gordon's teaching career began in Georgia as a classroom teacher. In 1964 she moved to Washington, DC, and began her career with the District of Columbia public schools. After more than 30 years of service in education, she is retiring from Browne Junior High School, where she has served as a teacher and assistant principal. Truly, her commitment to education has taken her well beyond the call of duty. In addition to her duties as assistant principal, Mrs. Gordon sponsored many after-school programs designed to keep children from the ills of society, including school trips and educational enrichment. Active in her community, Mrs. Gordon is a member of Trinidad Baptist Church, where she sings in the gospel chorus and works diligently to serve the church and community. Her civic and professional affiliations include: Delta Pi Epsilon National Professional Honorary Society for Business Education, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, and the Fort Washington Area Boys and Girls Clubs. A dedicated family person, she is married to John Gordon and is the mother of three sons, Jeffrard, Jon, and Jason. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mrs. Zelmar Stevenson Gordon on her retirement and join her family and friends in saluting her on July 22, 1995, at the Trinidad Baptist Church in Washington, DC.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Almenia Stevenson Williams as she celebrates her retirement from Anacostia Senior High School in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Williams was born in Florence, SC to the late Reverend Leo T. Stevens and Utensile Jackson Stevenson. She was educated in the Florence County public schools and later received her bachelor of science degree in business education from Savannah State College and master of arts degree from the Catholic University of America. She furthered her studies at the University of the District of Columbia, Howard University and Trinity College. Mrs. Williams began her teaching career in the public schools of Cedartown, GA. In 1966, she began her 29-year career with the District of Columbia public schools, serving at Anacostia Senior High School for the past 16 years. Mrs. Williams' dedication to students is not limited to the confines of classroom instruction. She served as the Student Government sponsor and worked with the Future Business Leaders of America. In addition to dedicated service to her profession, Mrs. Williams is active in numerous civic and professional organizations including the National Business Education Association, Ladies First Aid Union of Churches, and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. She is also a longtime member of Trinidad Baptist Church, where she is the business manager for the chorus choir and the recording secretary for the nurses unit. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mrs. Almenia Stevenson Williams on her retirement and join her family and friends in saluting her on July 22, 1995 at Trinidad Baptist Church.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the descendants of Jack Spann of Sumter, SC as they celebrate their family reunion. Jack Spann was born May 16, 1844, in Middleton Township in my hometown of Sumter County, SC. Jack was the son of Milton and Lettie Spann, who had one other son, Dave. Born into slavery, Jack received his freedom around 1854, prior to the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. After receiving his freedom, Jack lived on Scriven Moore's place as a tenant farmer in a community known as Scuffletown. Jack Spann was also a minister and was assistant to the pastor of St. Luke AME Church for many years. He could quote the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It was said of him, ``If Christianity was ever demonstrated, Jack Spann was an excellent example.'' When a member of the community died, families called on Jack Spann to pray with them. In 1876, Jack Spann married Sophie Bradford, with whom he had 11 children, 6 of whom died in infancy and early childhood. Those who lived to adulthood were: Harriet, Annette, Jack, Joseph, and Henry. Sophia Bradford Spann died in 1889 and is believed to be buried in the old St. Luke AME Church cemetery. In 1891, Jack married Alice Jackson Singleton, a young widow, who had a child from her first marriage, Sipio, who was known as ``Fisher.'' Jack and Alice had nine children of their own: James, Richard, Albert, Samuel, Mary Alice, Eliza, Willa, and Sarah--twins, and Lummie. After a long and fruitful life, Jack Spann died in Sumter County at 7:35 a.m. on June 11, 1925, at the age of 81. Alice Spann died in Kershaw County on July 29, 1948, at the age of 76. Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 1995, Jack Spann's descendants, including his only surviving child, Eliza Spann Missouri Pickett, 92 years of age, will gather in New York to celebrate their family reunion and to honor the memory of Jack Spann and all of their long-gone relatives. Please join me in congratulating this fine family.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the substitute bill being offered by my colleagues, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Roemer, and Mr. Boehlert. During the lengthy committee markup of H.R. 961, I listened closely to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as they delivered thoughtful opinions on every aspect of this complex legislation. In the end, I voted not to report H.R. 961 out of committee. Mr. Chairman, my vote against H.R. 961 is not a vote against clean water. In fact, it is very much the opposite. My vote against H.R. 961 is a vote for clean water, for good health, and for an adequate level of environmental protection. I believe the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute is a sensible solution that can provide us with all of those things. In my State of South Carolina, many programs under the current act are administered by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control--DHEC. On yesterday, I was contacted by DHEC and they expressed to me they would rather have no change than the damaging changes found in H.R. 961. Now when the agency that was created to protect the health and environment of the people oppose a bill, that should cause us all to wonder about the ramifications of it. The comments made by DHEC are not unfounded. Let me tell you why. Throughout the debate on clean water in both this Congress and the last, we have heard what some call tales about people who catch their evening meals in the streams behind their homes, or our of the rivers that run through their communities. Let me assure you that these are not just fish tales. Mr. Chairman, this is a reality, especially in rural districts such as the one I proudly serve in South Carolina. Over 48 States have issued over 1,300 fish advisories for recreational and subsistence anglers. As of 1994 in South Carolina, there were 18 fish advisories in effect. That is up from only three in 1992. Do the math anyway you like, but the sum adds up to there is more that needs to be done. The provisions in the substitute bill would keep these waters clean and allow these people to keep fishing in the waters, and their children to keep playing in the waters without the hazards they could encounter if H.R. 961 were to be put in place. Among other harmful changes, H.R. 961 would allow water quality standards to be relaxed for up to 70,000 pollutants. I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that is 70,000 more pollutants than the people of the Sixth Congressional District of South Carolina need to be exposed to. I imagine if I asked for a show of hands of those Members who have visited the South Carolina coast, there would be quite a few. Our State is one of 35 that belong to the Coastal States Organization. This is yet another reason to support this substitute because it contains provisions developed by the Coastal States Organization that are intended to protect these fragile coastal areas from runoff pollution. The coastal lands need special provisions. The Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute would give these special protections as developed by the Coastal States Organization, and allow for continued responsible use of our coastal areas. Mr. Chairman, it is no doubt that people all across the country know the value of clean water. In a recent Times-Mirror poll, 76 percent of Americans said they felt we should do more, not less to protect our Nation's waters. However, no one knows the value of clean water as much as the residents of rural communities across America. There is a term we like to use today--``Environmental Justice.'' I don't care what you call it, but the concept remains the same. People living in small, mostly rural and poorer communities across America consistently suffer from more health problems due to environmental negligence. It is for those people that I rise today to support the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the markup of H.R. 961 in the Transportation of Infrastructure Committee. I want my chairman, Mr. Shuster, to know that even though we ultimately came down on different sides on H.R. 961, I congratulate him on the job he did in presiding over the markup, and I appreciate the sincerity of his views. And I want my ranking member, Mr. Mineta, to know how much I appreciate his leadership and commitment on this critical issue. Mr. Chairman, in the South we tend to tell stories to make a point, or use cliches to describe things. In keeping with that tradition, I would like to share two old adages we should all heed. One is ``if it ain't broke don't fix it,'' and the other is ``if you mess it up, clean it up.'' Mr. Chairman, this is the underlying message behind the substitute legislation being offered today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to joint with me in supporting clean water with a ``yes'' vote on the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Allen University in Columbia, SC, as they celebrate their 125th anniversary. Allen University has produced local and national leaders who have served their communities and the Nation in an exemplary manner, and it is fitting and proper that the accomplishments of the university be recognized. The late Bishop John Mifflin Brown and the people of the Columbia Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church had the vision to establish a school for the education of newly freed slaves in 1870 in Cokesbury, SC. The school was named for Bishop Brown's predecessor, Bishop Daniel Alexander Payne. Professor J.W. Morris was the school's first president. In 1880, the school was transferred to Columbia, SC, and was renamed for Bishop Richard Allen, the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. During its early years, Allen University satisfied the needs of the African-American community by providing courses leading not only to degrees in law, theology and the arts, but also courses of study at the elementary and high school levels. The school has since produced numerous scholars, attorneys, physicians, teachers, business and governmental leaders, and other professionals who have risen to positions of honor in the African- American community. Today, the university, under the leadership of Bishop John Hurst Adams and President David T. Shannon, is equipping itself to serve nontraditional students and others who would otherwise not have the opportunity for a college education, as well as remaining faithful to its traditional goals of clergy and leadership education. Mr. Speaker, I commend Allen University for its 125 years of progress, commitment and dedication in the shaping of productive lives as it strives to live up to its motto--``Heads to Think, Hands to Work, and Hearts to Love.''

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that the welfare system is in need of reform. But the Republicans' idea of welfare reform is to callously toss welfare recipients off the government rolls without much thought to getting or keeping them on payrolls. You will get no arguments from me that the best way to reduce the welfare rolls is to find jobs for many of the recipients. But merely requiring welfare recipients to find jobs without looking at the factors that make it difficult for them to get or keep these jobs is a reform measure that is primed for failure. H.R. 4, is the GOP's ``Personal Responsibility Bill,'' takes practically no responsibility for providing mechanisms by which these welfare recipients can make a realistic transition from welfare to work. First, the bill that we are debating here today contains no funding for work programs. Under this bill, welfare recipients can receive government assistance for up to two years before they are required to work. Why not begin right away with helping these recipients find gainful employment? Second, this is the same bill that would put low-income working mothers in a bind by cutting federal funds to existing childcare programs. bill, federal childcare programs would be consolidated into a State block grant that would cut $31 million in Federal funds to the State over five years--meaning that over 5,000 fewer children would receive Federal childcare assistance that year. When are they going to realize that affordable and reliable childcare is a major factor in a single mother's ability to find and keep a job? Also, another crucial factor in getting welfare recipients to work and in keeping them working, is income. We can not realistically expect a working mother to be able to take care of a family while only earning minimum wage. If we are going to require welfare recipients to go to work, why not require that these jobs provide a liveable wage so that working moms may be able to sustain themselves and their families? And although this is a separate issue, if you look at the fact that a single mom stands to lose Medicaid benefits for themselves and their children in lieu of a low-paying job with no health benefits, it would make more sense to stay on welfare. Mr. Speaker, I have long been an advocate of welfare reform. But I support realistic and humane welfare reform--one that includes programs that will train current recipients for real jobs; one that addresses the real need for reliable and affordable day care; and one that take into consideration the need for real wages so that these recipients can become self-supporting, productive members of society.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name replace that of the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] on the list for special orders.

Mr. CLYBURN

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to change our welfare system, and I was 2 years ahead of the curve in calling for reform of the current system. But, Mr. Speaker, welfare reform should not mean help denied. If this plan my Republican friends propose passes, in South Carolina 400,000 schoolchildren will be denied a lunch; in South Carolina, 20 percent of our children with disabilities will be denied SSI; in South Carolina, 5,000 additional children will receive less Federal child care assistance; in South Carolina, the State stands to lose $522 million for programs to help children. Mr. Speaker, if this program is approved, over 60,000 people will be denied much-needed assistance.