William Jefferson

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I must urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. I do it, raising the question as to why this Congress ought to treat Africa any differently than it treats any other continent in the world. Why would we say to the African nations that we must send all of our cloth to them and have them work on it, when we do not say it to other countries in the world? Why do we say to Africa, we cannot trust you to work with our customs people, with our government, on the transshipments issue, when we do not say it to every other country in the world? Transshipment is not an issue, it is an issue as old as time. Every time we had to do a trading arrangement, we worried about transshipment, and every time we do that, we deal with the transshipment question as best we can. The African nations, to me, ought to be insulted by the way we are approaching this bill, because what we are saying is we trust them less than we trust the rest of the world to cooperate with us on transshipment questions. What is the basis for that? We have the facts in front of us. The facts say that the entry of textiles in our marketplace will have little to no effect. We disregard that and argue, as I have heard some argue, that it is going to have a tremendously deleterious effect on the jobs in our country. It is not true at all. What it will do is have almost no effect here and a huge effect there. We ought to treat Africa the way we treat the rest of the world. There is no reason to discriminate against that continent. I hope we vote for the rule.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell Members about an exciting mission that we took to Africa on behalf of the President of the United States, a mission that was led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that involved some 42 individuals, some six or so Congresspeople, people who represented the business sector and others who represented the administration. What we found was an Africa that it was ready to deal with trading and investing with the United States in a true partnership, an Africa that had felt neglected over the years, that was cheered on by the policy we were discussing, that had had a great hand in redacting the policy. This is not a bill that has come out of nowhere. It has been 2\1/2\ years in the making, ever since we were dealing with GATT and found out, to our surprise and to the surprise of many on our committee, that we addressed every continent in the world with respect to our trading and investing relationship, but we did not address Africa. We thought it was important to turn the attention of the administration toward that. We got African nations involved in it. We are now seeing the benefit of their input into this bill. They are hugely behind it; they are ready to work with us, and Africa is ready. This is not an Africa that it was 15 years ago. This is an Africa under great new leadership that has turned toward market-oriented economies, that is trying very hard to budget its affairs appropriately, and that is ready to do business with the United States. It would be to our detriment if we do not take advantage of it now. This bill is not perfect, as no bill is perfect, but it does take a huge step in the right direction of putting us on the map of dealing with a continent that has been neglected as a true and important trade and investment destination. It also does some important things here that will help the African nations manage their own investments in education and health much better than they have invested and managed them now. About a quarter of the African nations' budgets are taken up by debt. This bill purports to take care of debt relief. Another good part of the bill deals with an issue that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) raised a minute ago, that deals with equity investing in small business opportunities there that helps to put together chances for people to gain wealth in Africa. And also microenterprises. It addresses the issue of poor women in Africa, the most repressed population in the world. This is a great bill, it is mutually beneficial to our country and to Africa, and I hope this Congress will pass it.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. The question is whether ordinary working families, ordinary working people, will benefit from this capital gains tax relief. The answer is very few of them will, because to get tax relief they have to own capital assets, and very, very few working families own capital assets in this country. For instance last year if someone made between zero and $25,000, they paid 2.2 percent of all the capital gains taxes paid in the country. If they earned between $50,000 and $100,000, they paid 8 percent of all the capital gains taxes.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Up to $50,000, 10 percent of the capital gains taxes were paid, and between $50,000 and $100,000, another 16 percent of those persons paid capital gains tax. So between zero and $100,000, 26 percent of the capital gains taxes were paid, which means that above $100,000, 74 percent of all the capital gains taxes were paid in the country. Which means, to put it another way, if we give a break in capital gains, we are going to give a break that is going to affect, 76 percent of the capital gains tax is going to affect 4 to 5 percent of the taxpayers in this country. Put another way, if one makes over $200,000, one paid 60 percent of the capital gains taxes last year. That is 1 percent of all of the taxpayers in this country; 110,000 taxpayers out of 110 million taxpayers in America. So a great part of this bill, $8 billion a year, is going to end up in benefits for the top 1 percent of the earners in our country, people who make over $200,000 and who, on the average, make $650,000 a year. So if people are watching this television program now and are expecting a capital gains tax cut and are making $30,000 or less, even if one makes $50,000, as we just talked about, they can turn the TV off and go and do something more meaningful, because there is nothing in this bill that is really going to help those people. But if one makes over $200,000, they want to stay tuned, because there is a whole lot here that is going to get them out of a big bunch of trouble. Those people are going to save collectively, as a group, $7 billion to $8 billion a year out of this bill just on the capital gains issue. On the estate tax, it does not get any better. Out of the 2.5 million people who died last year, only 39,000 paid estate taxes. That is less than 2 percent.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, those are the only people who are affected by this whole discussion about estate taxes.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, it is not fair, because it leaves out, as the gentleman can see, 98 percent of the taxpayers in one case, and in another case leaves out almost 99 percent for any meaningful tax relief. This is a bill for people who make a lot of money and who have a great deal in their estates, and that is about it. It is not a bill that is going to help middle-income people or working families.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, if one makes more $200,000 a year, stay tuned on capital gains taxes. If one makes more than $100,000, they might want to watch part of the program. But $200,000 should really stay tuned.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, for the estate taxes, if one's estate net is over $600,000 last year, of course one paid estate taxes. This is going to raise it about to $700,000 or so on their side; $750,000 I think it goes this year. So I suppose that if one has net estates of over that amount of money, less than 1 percent of the people in the country, then those people want to stay tuned also. But for everybody else, if people are watching this thing on TV to see what is in it for them on estate taxes and capital gains taxes, they might want to turn the TV off and engage in something else more meaningful.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, this is what we might call a back-to- the-future kind of an idea here in this tax bill that takes us back to the idea of tax loopholes and tax shelters. Now, there are any number of ways this game could be played out, but any time one has a marginal tax rate on individual income that is 39 percent and a capital gains rate that is 20 percent, which is roughly 20 points in the differential, one is going to have a great incentive for people to find and cover ways to avoid paying taxes on salaries and to find a way to pay taxes on capital gains. So it is a natural incentive and it is made far greater under this bill. There are any number of ways that people can take advantage of this. Let us just talk about a couple. If one has a high income, then one has a higher capability, ordinarily speaking, of borrowing money. And one probably has a home that is worth a lot more than somebody that does not have a high income. So right now to make a home loan, the interest on the home loan is deductible. If one wants to get involved in a big capital acquisition like a stock purchase, one could take a home loan with deductible interest and buy a big stock purchase with it and take advantage of this huge capital gains break we are going to give the folks who are dealing in stocks.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, a policeman in Georgia probably has a smaller house, probably would take a loan to send his kids to college, is not going to be for some big differential like that, plus there is not going to be enough money to play that much in the stock market with. So it will not be available for that person. At the very top of that level, if a person has a big salary from a big company, he can take his salary in stocks rather than take it in ordinary income, and therefore avoid paying the tax on the stock.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican's so-called Taxpayer Relief Act and in support of the Democratic substitute. We are all for tax cuts, Democrats and Republicans. But, the question is, will middle-income families, the working families of our country, get any relief from the Republican's capital gains tax cut? The answer is very, very little, if at all. This is necessarily true because middle-class working families own very little of the capital assets that are taxed at capital gains rates today. If your family made between zero and $25,000 last year, you were in an income group that paid 2.2 percent of the capital gains taxes. Those who made between $25,000 and $50,000 paid another 8 percent of the capital gains taxes. And, if you made between $100,000 and $200,000, you paid 16 percent of the capital gains taxes. The fact is that 60 percent of all capital gains taxes paid in 1996 were paid by taxpayers who made more than $200,000. These super rich taxpayers, make up only 1 percent of all the taxpayers in America; only 110,000 tax filers out of more than 110 million taxpayers, and they get a tax break of roughly $7 billion a year. So how do we make capital gains tax breaks fair to working families? The Democratic substitute does it by targeting the capital gains tax relief to small businesses, family farms, and homeowners. It leaves out most families that make more than $100,000 a year, and gives 76 percent of its tax relief to families that make less than $100,000 a year. The Democratic substitute targets family farm owners and small business owners for its estate tax relief, assets that keep families together and that usually represents a lifetime of work and investment. The Republican's bill gets worse still on capital gains. Not only do more than half of the capital gains tax breaks in this bill go to the top 1 percent, it is going to open the door to an old stripe of shenanigan that only the super rich taxpayer can play. It will reintroduce the opportunity for clever new tax shelters. This is because there will now be under the Republican bill a 20 percent differential between the top marginal rate of 39 percent that high- income earners will have to pay on salaries and the 20 percent capital gains rate that Republicans are pushing on the floor. If you were a high-income taxpayer making more than $100,000 a year, wouldn't you rather pay a 20 percent rate on your earnings that a 39 percent rate? Of course you would. So what you would do, with your lawyer or your tax accountant, is devise ways to re-characterize your income from income from a salary to income from a capital asset. Thus, by changing the name of your income, or as a tax lawyer would say, by recharacterizing your income, you could save 20 percent of the taxes that you otherwise would have to pay. It's a great deal if you can get. But you can only get it if you are one of the super rich in our country. This is a back to the future tax bill. It's the same old story all over again--if you are a working stiff, you work and pay your taxes; and if you are a high-income taxpayer, you find a loophole to get out of paying. This Republican bill provides loopholes big enough to drive a Brink's truck through, and that's exactly what the high- income taxpayers of this country are going to do. the Republican bill is an unfair, unprogressive, inefficient, complex tax proposal. The Democratic substitute solves these problems. Like we used to say in the Louisiana legislature, the Republican tax bill is a snake and we ought to kill it. Then pass the Democratic substitute.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think what is really important is that the Republicans are using gimmicks in this whole operation. Just as they are in the education tax credit area, so they are doing it in the capital gains area. When they tell us that 75 percent of the capital gains taxes go to ordinary folks who are middle-income taxpayers, what they are saying in the first 5 years when they use this idea of induced sales, this gimmick of induced sales, but when we look past the first 5 years there is a huge windfall for those high-income taxpayers, and this is, after all, a 10-year window we are dealing with here, not the first 5 years. So we need to tell the whole story that this Democratic substitute does it quite differently. We come up front with what we are talking about here, we give the capital gains tax to people who need it, the small business owners, those people who are small farmers and folks who are homeowners. These are the folks who make up the heart of America, and these are the people who are hard-working folks who need the help, and we concentrate our capital gains relief to them, and this is no gimmick, this is real relief for those people.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that Monday, May 20, 1997, marked the first anniversary of the administration of President Lee Teng-hui and Vice President Lien Chen of Taiwan. A few weeks ago, several Members of Congress and I stopped briefly, too briefly, in Taipei on our return to the United States from a congressional trade development trip to Asia and the Pacific rim. During our stopover, we had the opportunity to visit with President Lee and Vice President Lien. President Lee impressed me, and I believe other members of the delegation, with his commitment to instituting full democracy in Taiwan. I was equally impressed by President Lee's commitment to provide a higher standard of living in Taiwan and to improve relations with both the United States and China. The first-year record of President Lee and Vice President Chen offers promise for future progress. Taiwan has maintained a steady economic growth with a per capita income of $13,000--U.S.--that is equivalent of many Western European countries. Taiwan has expanded relations with several countries and has sought a continuing dialog with the People's Republic of China about eventual unification with a more democratic and open government in China. Finally, Mr. Speaker, President Lee deserves congratulations on the many accomplishments during his first year in office and best wishes for continued success and progress. I hope that I will be able to visit Taiwan again and to stay longer than just a few hours.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, on which the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means Committee conducted hearings yesterday. I am a proud coauthor and original cosponsor of this important and historic legislation which will start the process of bringing African and United States economic interests together in the global marketplace. The African Growth and Opportunity Act has been coauthored and received in an enthusiastic bipartisan spirit, led by our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, Phil Crane, as well as Congressmen Rangel, McDermott, Houghton, Matsui and many others. Yesterday we heard declarations of support from the Clinton administration, Speaker Gingrich, former House Secretary Jack Kemp, former Mayor Dinkins and a host of other trade, investment, development, and diplomatic officials for this landmark legislation. It was, Mr. Speaker, an exciting day and exhibited the great inspiring unity the Congress is capable of when it puts aside party and strife and employs the talents of all of us to deal with national and international issues. Mr. Speaker, the African Growth and Opportunity Act would establish as U.S. policy the path from developmental assistance to economic self- reliance through trade and investment for African countries committed to economic reform, market incentives, and private sector growth. In addition, H.R. 1432 will establish several new initiatives to promote trade and investment in Africa, a few of which I will briefly outline. First, H.R. 1432 would direct the President to develop a plan for trade agreements to establish a United States/sub-Saharan Africa free trade area by the year 2020. Second, H.R. 1432 would establish a United States/Africa economic forum to facilitate annual high-level discussions of bilateral and multilateral trade and investment policies modeled on the highly successful APEC forum that has worked so well to spur U.S. trade and investment in Asia. Third, it directs OPIC to create a $150 equity fund and $500 million infrastructure fund for Africa, which will help lay the groundwork for private sector development. And fourth, H.R. 1432 proposes a market access initiative which would redirect an enhanced generalized system of preferences program to qualifying African countries, assisting the least competitive countries in Africa to access United States markets. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is important for four principal reasons. First, the development of a trade policy with sub- Saharan Africa is important because the United States does not currently have a trade policy with this part of the world. So while many Asian and Latin American economies have flourished as a result of the influx of private investment and international trade, Africa has been almost exclusively relegated to developmental assistance. Thirty years ago, the standards of living of Korea and Ghana were nearly equal. Today, Korea is a vibrant, industrial powerhouse, while Ghana is still a nation very much in economic transition. While there are numerous reasons to explain this difference, the critical distinction between Asia's and Africa's development has been Western investment and trade. H.R. 1432 places our Government's imprimatur on trade and investment in Africa, a crucial catalyst for attracting further private sector investment in the region and on the continent. Second, this bill lays the groundwork for enhanced private sector and infrastructure development in Africa, which will improve standards of living for the people of sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Speaker, this is in the interest of our country, the United States. Africa represents 10 percent of the world's population and possesses enormous untapped natural and human resources. Amid a dizzying array of mining, petroleum, and agricultural resources are an industrious and entrepreneurial people who yearn to compete in the global marketplace and represent an important future market for U.S. exports and thus for the creation of U.S. jobs. But right now, many people in sub-Saharan Africa lack the basics: telephone and electricity service; clean running water; and essential medical technologies. Fortunately, we can help, and H.R. 1432 takes a giant step, through infrastructure development, free trade agreements, and market access initiatives, toward improving the standard of living for millions in sub-Saharan Africa. It would promote foreign, direct investment in Africa through the two funds that I mentioned earlier. These funds are vital to Africa's development because of the 1,160 privately financed infrastructure projects around the world, only 6 percent occurred in Africa. And between 1984 and 1994, only 2 percent of the world's foreign investment was made in Africa. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to support the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a bill that is good for America, good for Africa, and good for the cause of international economic development.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the administration's certification of Mexico as a country cooperating in the war on drugs and to support the bipartisan committee version of House Joint Resolution 58. Mr. Speaker, my State, Louisiana, is being overrun by drug traffic from Mexico. And my city, New Orleans, is fighting the reputation as the murder capital of our Nation, largely because drugs entering Louisiana from Mexico are driving a spiraling crime rate. Drug merchants battling over drug money and drug turf are killing each other on the streets of our city and across America, often catching innocent citizens, even our children, in the crossfire. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that because Mexico has been a traditional political and economic ally, it is difficult to now declare that it is not an ally with us in our war against drugs. But the issue here is not politics or the economy. The issue is, how do we find a way to close the floodgates out of Mexico through which the vast majority of marijuana and cocaine and a large percentage of the heroin flow into our country. I am not sure how effective our present certification policy is to address this question. I do not know if its inflexible requirement of a pass/fail grade, an A or an F is preferable to a multitiered grading system. And I am far from certain that it makes sense for us to have a certification policy that cuts off antidrug support to countries with the poorest drug fighting records, ensuring that they will do even less, and that punishes the innocent citizens of the decertified countries through the imposition of sanctions that cut off international monetary assistance to their countries while leaving drug kingpins in these countries unaffected and free to continue their illegal drug enterprises. I do not know, therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we would not be better off to scrap the entire approach of the decertification process and replace it with a law better designed to achieve a more targeted campaign against drug importation. But this I do know. So long as we have our present policy of listing decertified countries, Mexico deserves its place on that list. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when our country has a better and more effective policy to achieve cooperation with Mexico and other countries in stemming the flow of smuggled drugs. Common sense and compliance with current law demand that we now vote to overturn the certification of Mexico, and I urge the Congress to do so.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained when rollcall votes 222, 223, and 224 were taken. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' I was detained because my plane was an hour late in taking off.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed two votes. Had I been present, I have would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 840 and ``no'' on rollcall 841.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, we have honored many legends on this floor--men and women who are revered and who will be so revered for generations. I come to this historic floor today to add still another name to this long list of distinguished Americans who we can truly call a legend of out time--one whose singular contributions will separate him from everyone else who has toiled in his profession. Our Nation has produced many, many great football coaches. Men like Paul ``Bear'' Bryant, Woody Hayes, Ara Parseghian, Joe Paterno, Knute Rockne, Amos Alonzo Stagg, Bud Wilkerson, to name a few But, today I rise to pay tribute to the historical accomplishments of Coach Eddie G. Robinson of Grambling State University--the winningest football coach of all time, the best that the game of football has to offer. During a period spanning 55 years, Coach Robinson has led his Grambling State teams to more than 400 victories. No other coach has reached the 400 win milestone. Along the way, he has won 17 SWAC championships or cochampionships. Coach Robinson started modestly at Grambling. Nevertheless, he grew to a giant in his profession. Yes, he has become the greatest coach of all time, but his first priority always was the development of his players. Coach Robinson nurtured his athletes into competent, strong, professional players, not only in game of football but in game of life. He has touched our hearts, our very souls. His achievements will stand forever. We are left to wonder what Grambling State University would have been like had Eddie Robinson not walked through the doors of the then Louisiana Negro Normal and Industrial Institute in 1941. Would there have been the mentoring, that steady hand guiding countless young athletes to exalted levels of achievement? Would such players as Paul ``Tank'' Younger, Willie Brown, Willie Davis, Buck Buchanan, Doug Williams, Charlie Joiner, Frank Lewis, Essex Johnson, Billy Newsome, John Mendenhall and over 200 other players have been able to leave their mark on the National Football League? No. A Grambling State University, indeed the American way of life, without the contributions of Coach Robinson is not imaginable. Coach Robinson, served as a coach, father and tutor to thousands of students at Grambling who have gone on to make great contributions to this Nation. Through his tenacity and guidance, he influenced countless young men and women who crossed his path. For this and for all that Coach Robinson through his success has meant to our country, we in the Congress offer our most heartfelt congratulations to him. All Americans are extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to experience the influence of this great man. Coach Eddie Robinson is a winner, and because he is, so are we all. The Congress salutes Coach Robinson today not only for winning more football games than any other college coach, but for who he is.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement for the record. On the last recorded vote on the amendment, rollcall 344, I believe it is, I inadvertently voted ``no''; my intention was to vote ``yes'' on that amendment.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in support of the Gephardt amendment and to voice concern regarding the Republican tax bill. One of the immutable principles of tax law is fairness. Unfortunately, the only place fairness appears in this Republican tax bill is in the title. Tax fairness would mean that the so-called reform bill before us would benefit not just the privileged few but the majority of American taxpayers by providing for an across-the-board set of sacrifices shouldered proportionately by every taxpayer based on his or her ability to pay. In this regard, with regard to unfairness, the Republican tax bill is doubly guilty. First, it pays for the $630 billion cost on the small shoulders of the most vulnerable Americans, our Nation's children, through cuts in programs that support children and families. Secondly, the Republican bill hands its tax benefits over to the wealthiest Americans. Finally, it disregards our responsibility to reduce the Federal deficit. Mr. Chairman, the Gephardt amendment sets things right. It represents a more uniform way to help eliminate the current budget deficit. It is fair to the middle-class taxpayer and promotes education and savings and is overall good for our families, and it will ensure that deficit reduction is made before any tax cuts take effect. Finally, Mr. Chairman, America needs the Gephardt amendment. It has no hidden set of agendas. It singles out no special-interest group. Giving tax breaks to the middle class while reducing our deficit, keeping intact programs for our children and for the elderly, for students, and for families is why Gephardt makes sense. I urge you to approve the Gephardt amendment.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children. Sadly, today Congress is falling extremely short of this test. It is sacrificing the health and well-being of our Nation's most vulnerable in favor of petty political rhetoric, and to safeguard the privileged status of the wealthiest of Americans on the backs of women and children. With the near elimination of the school lunch and breakfast programs and the Food Stamp Program, among others, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have hit nearly 5 million of America's children, our most previous resource, where it could very well hurt them the most--in their stomachs. Mr. Speaker, that is a shame. The proposed rescissions this House will be asked to vote on soon are mean-spirited and close to a declaration of war on women and children. Child nutrition programs, undeniably, have been marked by many signs of success. There is a positive connection between child nutrition programs and educational attainment. Low-income children who participate in these programs achieve higher standardized test scores than low-income students who do not. Decreased tardiness and absenteeism have also resulted from these programs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these nutrition programs have made it easier for children to do what we want them to do when they go to school--to learn. Let us not take this chance away from our children.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus for special orders in conjunction with Black History Month. Each year, CBC members speak on important contributions to the African-American community, individuals or organizations. This year, I have chosen to honor the Congressional Black Caucus itself as it celebrates 25 years of service to the African-American community in America and, indeed, to all of America. The Congressional Black Caucus was born in 1970, when 13 African- American Members of Congress joined ranks to strengthen their efforts to address concerns of blacks, women, Hispanic, Asians, and other disadvantaged citizens. Mr. Speaker, it did not take long for the fledgling caucus to capture national attention. In March, 1971, the CBC made headlines presenting President Richard Nixon with 60 recommendations for government action on domestic and foreign policy issues. Although President Nixon did not respond positively to the recommendations, his less than adequate response strengthened the resolve of the original members of the CBC to continue on its new found mission. During the past 25 years, the CBC has blossomed as a strong and progressive voice for alternative legislative programs. Mr. Speaker, let me name just a few of the CBC's achievements during its quarter century of existence. In 1972, the CBC convened hearings on ``Racism in the Media'' and a national policy conference on ``Education for Black Americans.'' In 1974, the CBC introduced the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act to reduce unemployment and inflation which became law in 1977. In 1977, the CBC established the National Black Leadership Roundtable; and, in Congress, amended the Public Works Employment Act to provide for 10 percent of the $4 billion of authorized Federal funds to be spent with minority firms. In 1980, the Caucus offered the first CBC constructive alternative budget and published ``Black Voter Guidelines'' for elections that year. In 1982, the CBC introduced and passed legislation to designate the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a national holiday. In 1985, the CBC leadership forced the House and Senate to protect critical domestic programs from Gramm-Rudman budget cuts. In 1986, the CBC passed sweeping South Africa sanctions legislation and created four major Federal minority enterprise programs--the most notable in the $32 billion Defense Authorization bill. In 1989 the CBC cofounded the Parliamentary Black Caucus in the British Parliament. And in 1992, the CBC pushed through important legislation for financial assistance for the college education of disadvantaged, and for historically black colleges. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the significant accomplishments of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Congressional Black Caucus has grown in numbers, diversity, expertise and influence during the past 25 years. New members represent urban and rural areas, the east coast and west coast, the North and South and agricultural and manufacturing centers. They come to the U.S. Congress uniquely prepared to serve, many bringing a wealth of experience in State and local governments as well as the desire to make an immediate impact on issues important to the poor, the underprivileged, women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and the middle class. In fact, the 40-member Congressional Black Caucus turned the 103d Congress into the most productive in its history--passing motor-voter legislation, tax incentives for private investment in minority venture capital funds, improved earned income tax benefits, enterprise zone legislation and full funding for the Women, Infant and Children program, and for Head Start. As the 41-member Congressional Black Caucus begins its second quarter century of work, its members will face new challenges. These new challenges will, I am confident, be dealt with like the old ones, with persistent, dogged commitment, with strong, solid leadership and with experienced and determined membership. As the members of the Congressional Black Caucus' silver anniversary, we pause to remember the Congressional Black Caucus itself, with grateful hearts and with a deep and justifiable pride. The caucus' accomplishments, indeed its continued existence have contributed significantly to not only African-American History, but also to American history for the last quarter of a century. It has truly been the conscience of the Congress and the conscience of the nation. With God's help, may it always be so.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose section 2 of H.R. 831 regarding the ``Repeal of Nonrecognition on FCC Certified Sales and Exchanges.'' I strongly support the objectives of H.R. 831 concerning the need to permanently extend the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, however, I oppose the funding mechanisms suggested. Passing H.R. 831 would in effect repeal the FCC's Tax Certificate Program that the FCC administers under I.R.C. section 1071. The Tax Certificate Program was implemented to allow sellers of broadcast or cable facilities to defer capital gains taxes on the sales of broadcast or cable facilities. Because this is only a deferral of tax and not a waiver or elimination of it, ultimately, all parties involved will pay capital gains tax on the profits. The mischaracterization of this program as one which is a tax exemption is incorrect. I.R.C. section 1071 was enacted to effectuate the FCC's policies and goals relating to: First, promoting a diversity in obtaining broadcast licenses; second, preventing possible monopoly ownership of broadcast facilities, and third, stimulating reinvestment in the broadcasting business. Despite the efforts of the FCC to achieve diversity, the results have been less than impressive. Specifically, when the FCC implemented the provision relating to minority ownership, minorities owned less than 1 percent of all broadcast licenses. Since the adoption of the Tax Certificate Program, approximately 300 tax certificates have been awarded by the FCC for broadcast licenses and cable sales in the 17- year history of the program. During the same period, however, there have been approximately 15,000 broadcast license transactions. These figures demonstrate that although the program has led to an increase in minority ownership, the increase only represents approximately 3 percent of ownership since the enactment of the Tax Certificate Program. Clearly, more must be done to provide an opportunity for minorities to fully participate in the ownership of broadcast licenses, thereby providing programming diversity. More importantly, the number of licenses issued to minority-owned business would likely be far less without the Tax Certificate Program. Mr. Chairman, there has been no reliable documentation demonstrating that the repeal of the Tax certificate Program will result in any additional tax revenue in the future. It is far more likely that sellers will find alternative methods to structure broadcast license sales that minimize the tax impact of the transaction. Additionally, cancellation of the program will eliminate a vital means for minorities to acquire ownership of broadcasting licenses, thereby reducing the FCC's goals of providing programming diversity. To ensure achievement of these goals and policies of the FCC, the FCC should be allowed to reform the current tax certificate program to provide implementation as provided in the Gibbons--McDermott substitute.