William Jefferson

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. I did not say that. I was referring to amendments the gentleman made in committee some time ago, not to the amendment the gentleman is making today.

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

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

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have no problem with the assurances of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on any matter. I have worked with him for many, many years. I simply beg to differ, to say that that is not the issue that we are dealing with here. I have had many years of cooperation with him and I would hope we would have a day of cooperation on this matter because it is very, very important to us. It is important to us that we do not slow down this project, that we do not jeopardize our economy and jeopardize jobs and jeopardize where we are going down there, and jeopardize the future of our airport over the question of whether if we get a matter in conference we can somehow force a meeting with the mayor. That is an absurdity. What are we going to accomplish in conference, a governance structure or something that is going to fix the whole issue? No. It is going to take many months of painful discussion by local people, no matter what we do here. The suggestion by my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), that if this is not the right place, this is not the right place to seek for money, is an absurdity because the FAA and the Federal Government are deeply involved in building airports all over the country and local governance structure is being imposed by State and local governments all over the place as well. So these things are going in parity and they ought to go here in parity.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, may I say in response to what has been said by my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), he has on two occasions said the mayor has been unwilling to meet. That is inaccurate. We had a New Orleans delegation meeting up here and invited the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). He came to the meeting and we talked at that point about the issues. He has met with local people about this matter over many, many months. It is just a hard process. There is no slam dunk answer to this. It is going to take time. People have to work it out. When I say this is not the place to do it, it is not the place to do it, as the gentlewoman has pointed out. The place to do this is in the halls of local government, where people can decide these issues after negotiation. To come up here and try in some sort of a prophylactic way to kind of prevent any kind of differences from occurring back home about these issues, we cannot do it. They are going to have to take place. People are going to have to have discussions. There is nothing that can be merited by this, except setting a precedent for getting this Committee and this Congress involved in dictating local government structures. That should not be what we should be doing here. We should be working on larger issues of how the FAA relates to our local communities, how they support our local airports or not, but not the issues of local government. That is too hard for us or anybody else to do. To use this forum to kind of beat the city of New Orleans, the Mayor and other folks, into a meeting with us is a misuse of it, a misuse and an abuse of the process, I suggest. In the name of cooperation between us, the best way to do that is to work on these issues collegially here today, and not to have it said that somewhere down the road one of these days, after we get this passed, we are going to work cooperatively. We cannot. This is going to make it more difficult for us to work cooperatively and for the local folks to work cooperatively, rather than the other way around. It is not going to do anything but make matters more difficult to resolve back home. I have talked to the gentlemen from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter and Mr. Tauzin, about this ad nauseam. They are hellbent on this course, for reasons that are hard for me to understand, except that they have the power to do it. I believe that is the wrong reason. It ought to be done because it is the right thing to do, not because they think they can do it. I hope that out of all this that we will find a way down the road one day to think better of each other and be more tolerant of each other, and respect the city of New Orleans more in its desire and plans to get things done. I think we have a very competent mayor, a very competent council, a very competent board at the airport. I would like to see their work upheld and given a chance to succeed, and not have these Members of Congress getting in the way of having that done.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that I have introduced a resolution on behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation that will honor some long-forgotten and overlooked heroes of World War II. These heroes were not soldiers or sailors or aviators. These silent heroes were hard-working men and women from Louisiana. However, according to President Dwight Eisenhower who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, the ingenuity and hard work of these unsung heroes played an enormous role in winning World War II. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will award a Congressional Gold Medal to the late Andrew Jackson Higgins and another Congressional Gold Medal to his workforce of 20,000 at Higgins Industries in New Orleans, Louisiana. These medals will recognize their contribution to the Nation, to the Allied victory in World War II and to world peace. Let me briefly explain why the late Mr. Higgins and the employees of Higgins Industries deserve this long-overdue recognition. Andrew Jackson Higgins designed and engineered high-speed boats and various types of military landing craft, later to be known as ``Higgins boats.'' Higgins boats were constructed of wood and steel and transported fully armed troops, light tanks and other mechanized equipment essential to all Allied amphibious landing operations, including the decisive D-Day attack at Normandy, France. Mr. Higgins also designed, engineered, and constructed four major assembly plants in New Orleans for mass production of Higgins landing craft and other vessels vital to the Allied forces' conduct of World War II. Higgins Industries employed more than 20,000 workers at his eight plants in New Orleans. They worked around the clock over 4 years. At peak production, they built 700 boats per month. By the end of the war, they had built 20,094 landing craft of all types, and trained 30,000 Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard personnel on the proper operation of these boats. The slogan at Higgins Industries was: ``The guy who relaxes is helping the Axis.'' Beyond his genius in the design and engineering of the ``Higgins boats,'' Andrew Jackson Higgins possessed a foresight and a social conscience unheard of more than half a century ago. Long before the United States had entered World War II, the late Mr. Higgins began to stockpile the materials needed to produce the thousands of landing craft and PT boats. His foresight contributed greatly to America's readiness when it finally did enter the war. For example, Higgins bought the entire 1940 Philippine mahogany crop, anticipating a need for a stockpile of wood to build landing craft when American entered the war. Besides his foresight and ingenuity, Higgins instituted a progressive social policy at Higgins Industries, where he employed a fully integrated assembly workforce of black and white men and women. His policy was equal pay for equal work decades before integration and racial and gender equality became the law of our land. Mr. Speaker, after review of Mr. Higgins' contributions and the output of Higgins Industries during the early years of World War II, it is easy to understand Eisenhower's admiration and praise. On Thanksgiving, 1944, then General Eisenhower reported home, ``Let us thank God for Higgins Industries' management and labor which has given us the landing boats with which to conduct our campaign.'' Then again in 1964, President Eisenhower said of Andrew Higgins: ``He is the man who won the war for us. If Higgins had not produced and developed those landing craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.'' Mr. Speaker, the time has come for our Nation and this Congress to recognize Andrew Jackson Higgins and his employees for their unparalleled contributions to our country, to victory in World War II, and to world peace. Indeed, this tribute is just in time for June 6, 2000, the 55th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy, when the National D-Day Museum will be dedicated and opened in New Orleans. There are not adequate words to describe the vision and patriotism of Andrew Jackson Higgins and his employees. He understood what is needed to win World War II long before America was a participant, and he went beyond the call of duty to be prepared to serve his country. Then, his employees undertook the Herculean task of building the boats that won the war. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of our colleagues to join me and award a Congressional Gold Medal to the late Andrew Jackson Higgins and a second Congressional Gold Medal to the employees of Higgins Industries. These forgotten heroes of World War II provided a decisive and essential contribution to the United States and the Allied victory in World War II, blacks and whites, men and women, working side by side, equal pay for equal work, building the boats that won the war. Mr. Speaker, these silent heroes must be honored and should always be remembered and the award of a Congressional Gold Medal to them is highly in order at this time.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the allocation of time by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon to join the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) in a bipartisan effort to request this House vote to pass this important environmental restoration and protection legislation. This is the gentleman's birthday, I understand; and it is a wonderful birthday present for him to have this bill passed. But more than that, a wonderful gift to the people of our State that he is providing under his leadership, and I thank him for his efforts. H.R. 2957 amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize Federal support and coordination of water quality restoration projects for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in Louisiana. By passing this legislation today, Congress will join with the State of Louisiana, local governments of the Metropolitan New Orleans area, local universities, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, and private citizens who have already recognized that the lake is important and it is important to restore the water quality in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. Mr. Chairman, Lake Pontchartrain is one of the largest estuaries in the continental United States, and it is important that the Federal Government join in the effort to restore water quality there. The lake has a diverse ecology that is essential to the habitat that supports numerous species of fish, birds, mammals, and plants there. Lake Pontchartrain also handles the major storm water runoff for the 16 parishes in Louisiana that surround it. As a direct result of sewage and septic tank discharges, animal waste from nearby farms that contain herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, runoff from construction sediments, and other sources of pollution, the lake's water quality has been compromised to the point that fishing and swimming has been prohibited for decades. Already, our local initiatives have started to address the issue of water quality, and some predict that one day in the near future swimming may be permitted again and fishing may be restored fully. Restoration of the basin continues to be a major task for the State and local governments, and greater coordination is needed for restoration efforts. Mr. Speaker, there is another reason for Federal involvement. Lake Pontchartrain also serves as a relief valve for Mississippi River spring floods which bring waters from regions exceeding way north of our State when high water at New Orleans requires opening of the Bonnet Carre Spillway. Every time that the spillway has been opened, eight times since 1932, the last 1997, the deluge of Mississippi River flood waters that are diverted through Lake Pontchartrain have wreaked havoc on the delicate ecological balance in the basin. The waters of Lake Pontchartrain are brackish, not fresh water, not salt water; and the titanic influx of fresh water from the floods act as a toxic shock to the lake's environment that can take years to overcome. Mr. Chairman, the Federal challenge here today is to help us to balance the management of the river and the need for flood control for New Orleans, for the Nation, while at the same time balancing the management of the ecological and economically important resources for the lake. Mr. Chairman, we have been working on the problem of restoring the lake basin locally. It is time that the Federal Government adds its weight and ability to coordinate these efforts, and its resources, to help with this important initiative. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for yielding me this time, and I thank my colleague for his work on this measure. It is a pleasure to join him, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this bill today.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the disagreements are about here. In fact, there is so much agreement between their side and our side, I think we can close this debate out right now and say we all agree that our Tax Code is too complex, that it is too burdensome, that it is too hard to fill out the tax forms, and it does not work for a modern economy. We all agree with that. The question is whether we are just going to talk today and come back again with sound and fury, which in the end will actually signify nothing. We need a replacement vehicle for our Tax Code. On that we all agree. And if it were true that this bill provided that, that would be good news for all Americans. We could all come and cheer, Democrats and Republicans alike. But sadly, it is not true, Mr. Speaker. The truth is we are no closer to eliminating the Tax Code today than we were when we started out talking about this because we have no replacement vehicle. This business about putting a Volkswagen engine into a Jaguar, we would have the Jaguar first to put the engine in. We do not have the Jaguar to even talk about putting a Volkswagen engine in it. We do not have the replacement. Democrats know it, the Republicans know it, and it is really time now we make sure all of the American people know it to. Democrats and Republicans both agree the Tax Code is too complex, that our current tax filings are too burdensome. So why can we not stop this political charade and get down to serious bipartisan tax reform. This bill is an invitation to put the ball on tax reform, rather than to tackle it. It amounts to throwing up our hands and giving it to a commission, handing it over to a commission, admitting to the American people who hired us that we cannot do the job. Five years ago the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), my good friend and our distinguished chairman, promised to abolish the Tax Code and replace it with a better system. I and many of my Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means applauded this goal and expressed our willingness to work together to achieve meaningful tax reform. But instead of working together to reform our Nation's ailing tax system, to make it more simple and fair and efficient, my Republican colleagues have repeatedly introduced ridiculous legislation to eliminate the code, without offering any credible alternative system. Telling the American people you are going to eliminate the Tax Code is sure to score political points. However, we all know that nothing can be done here without a system to replace it, and, as speakers before me have said, that will destroy our economy. No lesser expert than Chairman Greenspan, the number one authority on our economy, has said so. So have my Republican friends forgotten that our duty as members of the Committee on Ways and Means is to develop tax policy and not to advance campaign politics? It is time for us to tell the American people the truth. We cannot abolish the tax system unless we develop another means of funding the government. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to replace irrationality with reason, to replace emotions with practicality, and to replace politics with sound policy. Support motion to recommit H.R. 4199 to be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) with instructions to require Congress to enact comprehensive tax reform of the Tax Code prior to the July 4, 2004, sunset date. The American people deserve true tax reform, and not just political rhetoric.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation to reduce the ad valorem duty on the active ingredient used in a product known as fipronil technical, an insecticide registered for use on dozens of crops, in the animal health industry to control fleas and ticks, and most importantly in urban pest control to stop the spread of destructive termites. As many of my colleagues know, the entire Gulf Coast is under attack by Formosan termites. The invasion is costing homeowners, businesses and local governments hundreds of millions annually. Biologists have traced these insatiable termites to twelve states. In my district--New Orleans--Formosan termites have caused more damage than tornadoes, hurricanes and floods combined. Experts trace the migration of these voracious termites to the continental United States back to the return of World War II cargo ships from the Far East to ports throughout the country. Since then, the Formosan termite has increased beyond control, infesting trees, homes and other buildings. Traditional forms of pesticides do not work on this termite and while efforts are underway to develop a termiticide that will eradicate the Formosan pests, we must also consider new products. We have been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and with manufacturers of pest control products to bring new products to the market to help us in our efforts to stop these destructive insects. A new product, fipronil, was officially registered for use by the EPA just last September and is being introduced into the market this month. This new product is applied to the perimeter of buildings and within three months the termites have died. The chemical is a non- repellent so the insects carry it to the nest and contaminate it before the other termites can detect it. Other products take much longer to produce results and are more labor intensive. Fipronil has no domestic producer which would be disadvantaged by the tariff reduction and other termiticides do not work in the same way that fipronil does. Fipronil has also been approved for use in treating trees. We are losing our old historic trees in New Orleans at an alarming rate to the Formosan termites. This product gives us hope that we will be able to stop this attack. My bill allows the makers of this product to bring the active ingredient into the United States at a reduced tariff rate. The product is finished, packaged and used in the U.S. creating jobs in both the manufacturing side as well as the pest control industry. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this proposal.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today my colleagues and I introduced the Digital Divide Elimination Act of 2000, legislation designed to extend technology access to every home in America. I urge every Member's support of this vital piece of legislation. More and more, America is transforming into a technologically driven nation, with every institution being impacted by the Internet and e- mail. In this new tech-driven economy, computers are becoming the crucial link to education, to information, to technological skills, to job sources, and to commerce. For all Americans, personal and economic success will depend on having the ability to understand and use these powerful information tools. However, according to the Commerce Department's report defining the digital divide, a large segment of the population has no access to technology at all. In fact, less than 10 percent of households with income below $20,000 own computers or have used the Internet, an alarming statistic. Unless this changes, these poor families, in both rural and urban areas, will be left behind. Millions of Americans will not have the tools necessary to compete in the new economy and will become the first second-class citizens of the information age. The digital divide has replaced Y2K as the major tech crisis facing America. Educators, Federal and local legislators and industry leaders have all begun to realize that the digital divide in America is a reality and are taking steps to bring technology to schools and libraries across America. We as public officials applaud them for their philanthropic efforts. In addition, there are current and pending Federal legislation that provides incentives for private corporations to increase computer donations. The increased charitable deduction for computers under Tax Code section 170(e)(6) has boosted computer contributions to public schools. The additional tax incentives proposed in the New Millennium Classroom Act, H.R. 2303, and the President's budget proposal, will provide further inducements and will extend access to libraries and technology centers. I support both these efforts. However, these efforts are not enough. To truly bridge the digital divide, we must build a public-private partnership to bolster these efforts, and, more importantly, extend technology access to every home in America. Only then will these children and their families truly gain an appreciation for technology and the Internet, in the home, unfettered by the constraints of an institutional setting. The legislation which we introduced this morning provides the incentives to bridge this gap and ignite the massive effort needed to make the information age a classless society. The legislation will induce private companies to donate computers, Internet access, software and technology training to schools, libraries, computer centers, and homes of poor families. In addition, the tax incentives will make it less costly for poor families to purchase computers. Let me tell you what the legislation will do: first, the legislation will provide a refundable credit equal to 50 percent of the cost for computer purchases by families receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit, up to $500. While the costs of computers and Internet access are dropping, the cost of a computer still remains a barrier for many low- income families and many working families. Returning half of the cost of the computer to these families, or, in some cases, all, if computers are less expensive, will help to lessen the financial toll. Just a little assistance can go a long way towards helping working families help themselves and provide a brighter future for their children. Second, the legislation increases the charitable deduction for computer donations to the higher of the depreciated costs of the computer and the market price of the computer. Many corporations have already stepped up to the plate and have offered their assistance in trying to bridge this digital divide. However, if we are truly to give every American access to technology, more has to be done and here government should play a role. As a result of this provision, computer manufacturers will have a greater incentive to donate unsold computers because they can deduct the full value of the computer. Mr. Speaker, in addition, nonmanufacturers will also have a greater incentive to donate computer equipment even where the depreciated cost of the computer exceeds the market price of the computer. Under current law, it is more economical for many nonmanufacturers to throw away used computers than to donate them to charity because they can take a higher tax deduction for disposing of the computer than for donating it. That is clearly bad tax policy, Mr. Speaker, and thankfully this provision will change that result. Third, the legislation will extend the special charitable deduction for computer donations through 2004 and expand it to include donations, not only to libraries and training centers, but also to nonprofits that provide computer technology to poor families. The experience of Computers for Youth in New York City which to date has delivered 103 fully-loaded Pentium computers to the homes of 7th and 8th graders in a South Bronx middle school highlights the need to extend these tax incentives to nonprofit organizations that are placing computers in the homes of poor families. Computers for Youth has scratched the surface in this one place in New York. We need to encourage similar efforts by nonprofits across the country. In conclusion, the President has placed priority on this issue and included $2 billion of tax incentives in his budget. I applaud him for this effort. This legislation goes even further to bridge the digital divide by focusing itself not only on provisions outside the home, but to bring computers to every home of every poor family in America. I appreciate this chance to bring this legislation to the American people.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, who would have ever thought just a few short years ago that we would earnestly debate here in this Congress whether a child needing medical attention could see a pediatrician or whether a woman could engage an OB/GYN for her primary care or whether a cancer patient could follow the advice of a family physician and see a cancer specialist? It seems obvious that people should be able to make these choices for themselves and for their families. What is more odd is that the choices and the access, which we seek today through the passage of the Dingell- Norwood Patients' Bills of Rights, are choices that our people used to have. In this sense, Dingell-Norwood is not declarative of new rights for patients, but is restorative of old ones. But the trouble with restoring old choices, the other side says, is the new costs involved that make health care choices unaffordable. But are we to assume that every level of every profit center in every HMO plan is reasonable, that every expense incurred by every HMO plan is warranted, or that greater patient choice will not usher in greater competition among HMO plans that will work to drive plan costs down? I think not. Besides, this has not been the experience of States which have undertaken HMO reform. The three amendments offered by my Republican colleagues make these vital decisions for consumers. I urge Members to reject the tempered approach of the Boehner-Coburn amendments and embrace the bold approach of Dingell-Norwood.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, it is important to put this whole matter in perspective. First, how did this matter come before the Committee on Ways and Means and ultimately now to this Congress? It did not come because some corporate lobby brought it to our committee. It did not come because of somebody in some slick suit said, Look, let's go and take advantage of Africa. It came up because those of us who were conscientious about the issue looked at what was happening in our 1994 GATT bill consideration and noticed that we were dealing with every country in the world, every continent in the world, trade relations, trade policies, but nothing for Africa on this subject at all. And so our committee decided that that was not right, that our country owed it to Africa and to the people of Africa and to the people of America to engage Africa as a trading and investment destination, as we had engaged the rest of the world. That is how this whole policy started out. And I should tell the Members this, those who worry about conditionalities in the bill ought to really line up with what is happening in Africa today. This bill would not be possible, there would be no reason to talk about it, there would be no way we could even pass it today, if it were not for what is happening in Africa itself. This bill builds upon the initiative of African-Americans. In Africa right now many countries have, through great pain, adopted reform that includes promoting the movement of goods and services through their countries, maintaining a fair judicial system and promoting the rule of law, protecting property rights, providing national treatment for foreign investors, implementing measures to facilitate investment, developing regional markets and promoting regional integration, and striving to reduce poverty and increase access to education and health care, particularly for women. This is what Africa is itself doing for its own people. This bill simply builds on that foundation. For those who worry about transshipments in Africa, I want to ask this question: Why do we consider something peculiar in the African experience, in the African culture, that raises these concerns beyond what we are concerned about them in other countries? Why is this such a big issue in Africa? It defies logic. First, there is no history of transshipment issues with Africa. Africa is one of the continents in the world where there are less problems than any other place on transshipments. Second, it is almost insulting to the Africans to suggest that they want to transship. When we were in Uganda with our President in 1998 with six African heads of State, each one of them stood up and took great umbrage at the suggestion that they would simply be transshipment arenas for China or for some other place. They said, look, we want the jobs in our own countries. We want to empower our own people. We want to employ our own people. Why would we have all these years, having a chance to ship our goods to America and not put our own people to work? It is an absurdity. African-Americans need the jobs. They are going to employ their own people, and there is nothing inherent in the African experience that suggests there would be concern about transshipment. I think this whole business about the issue of conditionalities, I think we have to look to the Africans on this question as well. There are many ways to talk about how to improve this bill, and I could think of a lot of ways to improve it, and everybody else out here could. But we have to now deal with what is possible to be done in the context in which we are working. The African nations understand that this is an important first step, this is not the end all and be all, but it is an important first step in this whole process. Let us not, in this measure, attempt to be more wise than the Africans about what they need. Let us stand with Africa for a change, and change the policy that relates to our relationship with it.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the House to this chart. Those who say they want to help African workers and who want to deny the entry of African textiles to the American market cannot have it both ways. This shows how little Africa is involved now in importations to our country: just four-tenths of 1 percent, this big blue area and this little sliver of red. This little sliver of red is African imports to this country. While it does not do anything in our market, makes us a slight dent here, one we can almost not notice, in Africa it is going to mean a lot to African workers. It is going to mean thousands of jobs there on the continent of Africa. It is the one place where Africa now has existing industrial capacity. The industrial revolution passed over Africa, or it was passed over Africa, if my colleagues will, and this is a way now to build in Africa the industrial base there around the textile industry. If this is not done for Africa now, this bill will not mean very much in the shot term for African workers or for people that are off to the continent. So, for those who want to help African workers, let us make sure we do something about letting textiles in this country. We can do something to help the entry-level worker in Africa get a job and build the industrial base in that country.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Jackson amendment because it is unrealistic in the light of how OPIC funds work and in the light of what we are trying to do here with this $500 million infrastructure fund. The expectation is that there will be large amounts of investments, perhaps $35 million each at a minimum, to invest in telecommunications, in banking, in transport infrastructure, in large infrastructure projects. There is no reason to tie the hands of these private fund managers as they try and bring Africa to the global economy in these areas which require huge investments. Frankly, the $500 million investment figure for this fund is fairly modest considering the investment needs of Africa and the lack of investment capital flowing into the country. So to say that this must be undertaken by small businesses only and undertaken by minority businesses only is to put Africa at a disadvantage in trying to develop its economy. In so many cases the gentleman from Illinois has said that the bill is too modest and understates its promises to Africa. In this case his amendment is too modest. It takes into account things that cannot work in Africa because they are too small-minded to work under the situation where we are looking for capital investment in major investment projects, in infrastructure. It limits the Africans too much. I really think that he has not thought it through well enough. I therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr. JEFFERSON. OPIC itself as the gentlewoman from Texas just talked about at some great length is focused on small business investment and development. It has not done that before. It is focused on it now to a great extent. The bill calls for women-owned businesses to be enhanced. In fact, that is where most of the empowerment provisions are. So I do not think that is a problem.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide this statement regarding the Government Pension Offset Reform legislation that I introduced today. Pension offset reform is an important issue to me. It is an important issue for my constituents in Louisiana and it is an important issue for many State and local government employees across the Nation. As many of my colleagues are aware, State and local government employees were excluded from Social Security coverage when the Social Security system was first established in 1935. These employees were later given the option to enroll in the Social Security System, and in the 1960s and the 1970s many public employees opted to join in. Some local governments chose to remain out of the system. Their employees and spouses planned for their retirement according to the rules in effect. It is estimated that about 4.9 million State and local government employees are not covered by Social Security. Seven States, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas, account for over 75 percent of the noncovered payroll. Many of the State and local government employees that are covered by government pensions are or will be unfairly affected by the pension offset. As Members may be aware, the pension offset was originally enacted in response to the perceived abuses to the Social Security system resulting from the Goldfarb decision. The Social Security system provides that if a spouse who worked and paid into the Social Security system died, the benefits were to be paid to the surviving spouse as a survivor benefit. Men were required to prove dependency on their spouses before they became eligible for Social Security benefits. There was no such requirement for women. The Goldfarb decision eliminated the different treatment of men and women. The Court instead required Social Security to treat men and women equally by paying benefits to either spouse without regard to dependency. Many of the men who would benefit from the Goldfarb decision were also receiving large government pensions. It was believed that these retirees would bankrupt the system, receiving large government and private pensions in addition to survivor benefits. To combat this perceived problem, pension offset legislation was enacted in 1977. The legislation provided for a dollar-for-dollar reduction of Social Security benefits to spouses or retiring spouses who received earned benefits from a Federal, State or local retirement system. The pension offset provisions can affect any retiree who receives a civil service pension and Social Security, but primarily affects widows or widowers eligible for survivor benefits. In 1983, the pension offset was reduced to two-thirds of the public employer survivor benefit. It was believed that one-third of the pension was equivalent to the pension available in the private sector. The pension offset, aimed at high-paid government employees, also applies to public service employees who generally receive lower pension benefits. These public service employees include secretaries, school cafeteria workers, teachers' aids, and others who receive low wages as government employees. The pension offset as applied to this group is punitive, unfairly harsh and bad policy. Government pensions were tailored to reduce benefits that were equal to many combined private pension-Social Security policies in the private sector for upper level government workers. However, this was not true for lower income workers, such as employees who work as secretaries, school cafeteria workers, teachers' aids, and others who generally receive lower pension benefits. To illustrate the harsh impact of the pension offset, consider a widow who retired from the Federal Government and receives a civil service annuity of $550 monthly. The full widow's benefit is $385. The current pension offset law reduces the widow's benefit to $19 a month. Two-thirds of the $550 civil service annuity is $367, which is then subtracted from the $385 widow's benefit, leaving only $19. The retired worker receives $569, $550 plus $19, per month. Proponents of the pension offset claim that the offset is justified because survivor benefits were intended to be in lieu of pensions. However, were this logic followed across the board, then people with private pension benefits would be subject to the offset as well. But this is not the case. While Social Security benefits of spouses or surviving spouses earning government pensions are reduced by $2 for every $3 earned, Social Security benefits of spouses and surviving spouses earning private pensions are not subject to the offset at all. If retirees on private pensions do not have Social Security benefits subject to offset, why should retirees who work in the public service system? Mr. Speaker, the pension offset has created a problem that cries out for reform. It will cause tens of thousands of retired government employees, including many former paraprofessionals, custodians or lunch room workers, to live their retirement years at or near the poverty level. My office has received numerous calls, all from widows who are just getting by and desperately need some relief from the pension offset. During the 105th Congress I introduced the Government Pension Offset Repeal bill, H.R. 273. Thanks to the grassroots support for it, it received 183 votes. Today we introduced this bill with 119 cosponsors already, and I look forward with my colleagues to gaining passage of this important reform legislation.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for yielding to me and for that very accurate description of me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., a man who was a giant in stature, a giant in intellect, and a giant in his unparalleled achievements. Physically, Judge Higginbotham was a towering man who stood over 6 foot 4 inches tall and possessed a booming voice that was both awesome and inspiring. At a memorial service held for him in Philadelphia, there were many references to the voice, the Judge's booming baritone that commanded respect and attention in every setting. Intellectually, Judge Higginbotham's peers heralded him as one of the most brilliant jurists, historians and scholars in the history of American jurisprudence. His numerous accomplishments include almost 30 years of distinguished service on the Federal bench, coveted teaching positions at both the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University, and two renowned books and numerous articles on race and the American legal process. In service, Judge Higginbotham was always a person of compassion, principle, and integrity. Though his work schedule was legendary, Judge Higginbotham found the time to serve as a mentor, as a teacher, as an advisor, and as a friend to countless many. In my own personal experience, Judge Higginbotham has come to this Congressional Black Caucus on numerous occasions to provide us advice, lectures, and to be involved in our Congressional Black Caucus weekends and stir us to a great achievement. He has been an inspirational figure for our Caucus for many years and was one who was always ready to give of his time. In my own personal work for the Black Caucus, Judge Higginbotham joined with me and with Lou Stokes and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) to help in a project to raise money and to explain to the giving community how important it was to support reinforcement efforts around the country through that giving and through their support. He traveled with us to New York and to Philadelphia to make the case as to why it still made sense for the community at large to give in this very important endeavor. I can tell my colleagues, and on a more personal note, for my daughter Jamila, who was a student at Harvard Law School when Judge Higginbotham was there in his last years, he was her third-year paper advisor and was one who took the time to help her to get through her third year preparation and to graduate well from Harvard Law School. So I thank him personally for what he did for my family, particularly for my daughter. Undoubtedly, Judge Higginbotham's personal attributes and professional accomplishments qualify him as a great American. However, I believe that his legacy lies in the fact that he used these attributes not to enrich himself but, instead, to enrich America. He used his remarkable talents to mount an intellectual challenge to all vestiges of racism in society and the law and to provide constructive critique of those who chose to feign a color-blind vision of society and politics in America as an excuse for not dealing with the tough racial issues that face us all. In his own words, ``One of the biggest problems for American society during the 20th century is our not recognizing the consequences of racism and that the real test of the 21st century is our being able to move from equality in the abstract to equality in significant results.'' It is not an overstatement to say that, in the last several decades, whenever the issues of social injustice were to be dealt with in this country, at the core of the debate was Judge Higginbotham, standing and speaking out on these very important questions. Judge A. Leon Higginbotham was an extraordinary human being, who, in 1995, received the Nation's highest civilian honor, the President's Medal of Freedom. Although he is gone, his legacy will live on in the many individuals whose lives he has touched. We all shall remember him fondly, Mr. Speaker, and we shall miss his work with us, and God bless his family and keep him high in our memory. I recall, as I stand here, the words of Frederick Douglass, which I think speak well to how we should remember Judge Higginbotham, and speaking about a fairly different issue, but nonetheless one that is related, the issue of liberty and freedom. Frederick Douglass said something like this, ``When it is finally ours, this freedom, this liberty, more usable to man than earth, more important to man than air, when it is finally ours,'' he said, ``then when it is more than the mumbo jumbo of politicians,'' he said, ``when it is diastole, systole, reflex action, when it is finally ours,'' he said, ``then this man, this Douglass, this negro, beaten to his knees, but yearning for the day when none are enslaved, none are alien, none are hunted, then this man,'' he said ``this Douglass will be remembered, oh, not with the statuted rhetoric,'' he said, ``and not with wreaths of bronze alone, but with lives, grown out of his life, with lives fleshing his dream of this beautiful needful thing.'' And so Judge Higginbotham's life will flesh our dreams of freedom and liberty in this country and we will live and work in the future and achieve because of the life and the legacy of this great man. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.J.Res. 32 in the Committee on Ways and Means was not a debate about whether we should save Social Security or give the American people a tax cut. Both the Democrats and Republicans favor tax cuts so long as they are paid for. The debate was about whether we would memorialize our commitment and then keep our promise to the American people not to touch a dime of the surplus until we have saved Social Security for future generations. This resolution does not make that commitment. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security system is the most respected and successful system in U.S. history. While my remarks will not change the resolution, I want to let the American people know that I, along with my Democratic colleagues, are serious about addressing the long-term solvency problems facing the Social Security system and stand by our commitment to save Social Security first. We owe it to the over two-thirds of older Americans who rely on Social Security for 50 percent or more of their total income. We owe it to the hard-working American families who rely on Social Security for continued prosperity as they enter into retirement. And, most of all, we owe it to our children who deserve to know that Social Security is going to be there for them.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I think the remarks the gentleman made about the Governor's race, when you and Bob were in it, were exactly right. We will have more to say about that in the future, Billy. I want to say this about my friend Bob Livingston. Bob started out representing a district that was largely Democratic. That is why I believe he learned to work so well with Democrats across the aisle, with Democrats in general, and of course with his own colleagues on the Republican side, because he had a lot of practice doing it in the first district that he undertook back home. Bob Livingston understood how to deal with ordinary people, and he understood how to deal with a city that was as diverse as New Orleans is. He and I had the good pleasure of working together, not just as colleagues in the Congress but as people who had a responsibility for making the Congress regard our city and for having the Congress respond to the needs of our city, and we did that in a beautiful partnership. He, of course, was the leader of the partnership; I was the junior partner. Nonetheless, he listened to me when I first came here. He encouraged me, he gave me whatever guidance he could, and he parted with me over time to take the issues that I knew were important to our area. He listened to me very well and he made these issues his own. And so, Bob, for the folks who drive the RTA buses, we thank you. For the people who worry about the hurricanes and those levied areas, we thank you for that. For those folks who drive on the streets that never really were quite right, that never will be because the ground is too soft and the street is always going to give way, we thank you for always remembering us in our community development programs and efforts. We thank you for what you did for our schools and for education, and for the way you tried to introduce technology, a very new feature, into the Louisiana economy, and how you helped to diverse our economy. We now have a monument that is an example of the kind of innovation that you are capable of, and it sits at the University of New Orleans, and will be there, I hope for all time, as a living monument to your creativity. What you did was to bring to our area, and to bring to the whole of our government, a new way of thinking about how to save money and to consolidate and to make our budget work better and in more effective ways; and, at the same time, to partner with the private sector in ways that now have created more than 1500 jobs in our area in this one facility and that will be there, hopefully for a good long time, as a Bob Livingston memorial. Now, we all hope to be remembered well when we leave this place. And as many of my colleagues said earlier, I'm confident that you will be, mostly for your decency, because people could talk to you, because they could work with you, because they respected you, and because we all looked forward to greater service from you. Bob, for one, I am really going to miss your presence here and I am going to miss the prospect of what would have been, I believe, great service as the Speaker of this House. And so, for those folks in Louisiana who would like to stand here with me today and from my district and say good-bye to you, let me on behalf of all of them give you our fondest farewell and our fondest best wishes for you and your wife and your family and say we were lucky to have a chance to serve with you and lucky to have a chance to be a partner with you for the time I have been and lucky to have known you and your family, and we wish you the best luck and Godspeed for all that you do in the future.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, at what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests, with a Bonaparte for a commander could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. So spoke President Lincoln in 1838 about the power of America. But he coupled this declaration of our world dominance with a warning and admonition of how we could lose it, which is apropos here. He said then, at what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us, it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. I hope as Lincoln hoped against hope then that I am overwary today about the wounds we are inflicting upon ourselves, our Constitution and our body politic by this unfair rush to judgment against our President. Like Lincoln then, I worry now about the wild and furious passions aimed to bring this President down rather than an exercise of sober judgment to lift up the true meaning of our Constitution. Like Lincoln, I worry that even though we are the preeminent power in the world today, that this grating, this chipping away at the high ideal of impeachment leads us further down the road to constitutional death by suicide of a free society. High crimes and misdemeanors, not all crimes and misdemeanors, is what our constitution holds as grounds for impeachment. There are no high crimes shown here. But there is a base and basic perversion of the rule of law into a rule of hot blood and a rule of political convenience by a majority bent on getting President Clinton. Today you may have the votes but you do not have the high ground. But just remember, as we say in Louisiana, what goes around ultimately, unfailingly and always comes around.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4578 because it breaks our promise to the American people to keep social security whole. Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be about politics or partisanship but about people, the American people. Social security is the foundation of retirement income for American workers and their families. Two-thirds of older Americans rely on social security for 50 percent of their total income. Thirty percent rely on it for 90 percent or more. It is the principal insurance against family impoverishment due to death or disability for 96 percent of America's work force, and it is a lifeline for more than 43 million retirees and disabled workers and their spouses and their children. Because of its importance to the American way of life, my Democratic colleagues and I join the President in his commitment to preserve social security for future generations. This is not a debate about who favors tax cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans favor tax cuts in this bill. This debate is about whether we have the resolve, the fiscal discipline, to do what is right, or whether we will, once again, say that we can have it all, let the good times roll, and do the wrong thing: rob from our social security trust fund to give a tax cut we know we cannot afford. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about preserving the benefits of social security for our children and grandchildren, setting aside 90 percent to save social security is not enough. Even diverting 10 percent of the social security surplus before enacting a proposal to save social security undermines the future financing of the system. In fact, this diversion of 10 percent from social security, which our Republican friends dismiss as small and rather unimportant, amounts to more than a $200 billion hole in the social security trust fund over the next 5 years, at a time when we owe $2.235 trillion to the fund already. As my Democratic colleagues have already stated, the surplus in the unified budget consists of funds raised from social security payroll taxes and from the interest accrued on social security Treasury bond. Today we have a surplus in the social security fund due to the policies of President Clinton and most of the Democrats on this side. However, as millions of baby boomers age, the social security fund is projected to begin losing money in 2013, and would become insolvent a few years later unless reforms are enacted. The bottom line is that we must begin to take steps to ensure that sufficient resources are building up in the social security system, so they are building to pay the promised social security benefits in the future and that will not be threatened. H.R. 4578 therefore amounts to an illusory election year tax plan that might be right to pander for votes in an election year, but it is dead wrong for the future of social security and the direction of our Nation's fiscal policy.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful to bring this debate down to Earth. The fact of it is, no Nation on the face of this Earth uses the WTO dispute resolutions more than the United States does. No Nation wins more battles before the WTO than the United States does. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have a case where, if we win with the WTO, we say, enforce the agreement; if someone else wins from another country, we say, trash it. Forget about it. It means nothing. Certainly we do not want it to mean anything in any jurisdiction that any of us have anything to do with. The fact of it is, this debate has already taken place on this floor. It took place when we did the Uruguay Round some few years ago. That established, as if it was not already well-established, that Federal and international law already assures that neither the WTO dispute panels nor the WTO itself have any capacity to compel THE U.S., our U.S. government, to change its laws or change the regulations. More specifically, only the United States can decide how it will respond, if it does at all, to panel reports. Only the U.S. Congress can change U.S. laws. Trade panel reports are not binding as a matter of U.S. law, and cannot form the basis for bringing suit in U.S. courts. If a suit is brought in U.S. courts, it will not because of a trade panel dispute resolution matter, it will be because the court otherwise has jurisdiction. Every executive agency, including the office of USTR, is charged with upholding U.S. laws and defending them against challenges. The fears about the Federal Government seeking to sue State governments to comply with international dispute panels is to me totally without merit. The Kucinich amendment is unnecessary. I think it creates an issue where there is none. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say something to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) tonight. I will not have time enough to say all that I want to say, but it is time enough to bring an end, someone had to, a merciful end, to this line of tributes to the gentleman. Lou, I want to say what has struck me most about you is your capability for love for all of your colleagues, for the institutions that has served us all so well, the Congressional Black Caucus and the many other institutions here, and for the institution of Congress itself. That you have a great and enduring sense of humor. You and I find time to laugh on this floor all the time, and you have proven you can have fun and get something done and that while we have serious business to conduct, we do not have to take ourselves too seriously. You have been deeply concerned about affecting the lives of other people. Your work has actually done that. The children who have lived in public housing over the years, and who live there now, people who are aspiring to get a house for the first time with the help of your committee, and the veterans who have given so much to their country are benefiting from what you have done. Long after you are gone, not generally from this place but from this Earth, there will be folks whose lives have grown out of your life. You have made a difference from that respect. Lou, you are the best example of a Congressman that I have encountered in this body and I hope that in some small way I could be an example for others as you have been to all of us.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today to discuss the issue of normal trade relations status for China. We know that MFN tariff treatment is not a privileged trading status, but the normal tariff treatment we extend to most nations, including many with whom we have substantial disagreements. MFN has been supported by every administration that has confronted the issue since 1980. China should be afforded MFN status again this year. I think we all agree that China has not done enough on human rights, enough on intellectual property rights, and enough on proliferation issues. Encouraging improvement in China's records in these areas is an important goal for U.S. policy, and I commend and support many of my colleagues for continuing to press the administration to address these issues with China, as do I. However, I would like to focus on one part of the critics' argument that we should not grant MFN for China because we have a large trade deficit with it. While it is true China is the second largest trading deficit partner of the United States, this should not preclude our continuing trade with this Nation, nor should it cloud the fact that the U.S. economy benefits substantially from trade with China despite the deficit. Japan is our number one deficit trading partner and there is no call today to terminate our trading relationship with Japan. In fact, the calls are to strengthen Japan's economy so that it will not fail, because Japan's importance to our economy dictates that if it fails, it has important consequences for the U.S. economy despite the Japanese deficit with us. I know that there has been heavy debate on whether a higher trade deficit is evidence of a trade policy failure. Actually, the trade deficit is evidence that our strong economy enhances consumer purchasing power, which draws imports, giving U.S. consumers a wide selection of goods to choose from at the most competitive prices. Indeed, withdrawal of China's MFN status would result in U.S. consumers paying approximately $390 million more a year for goods such as shoes, clothing, toys and small appliances. For manufacturers the cost of goods made with Chinese components would increase, reducing the competitiveness of their finished goods in domestic and international markets. Recently Secretary Rubin and others in the administration have echoed this argument that the rise in our trade deficit reflects the strength, not the weakness of the U.S. economy. We must evaluate the trade deficit in this larger context. Look at the facts: We have not seen the trade deficit undermine our strong economic performance. The U.S. economy remains on a track of sustained growth, low inflation and low unemployment. Revoking China's normal trading status will only serve to hurt U.S. exporters and manufacturers, not close the trade deficit. We have an important decision before us, Madam Speaker. Will we engage China so that other nations will not gain a competitive edge in developing Chinese markets over us? Or will this Congress choose to encourage China to improve its records on human rights, on weapons proliferation, and other issues? I would urge my colleagues to choose both courses, and that extending NTR to China is a step in the process of doing just that.