Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and not to attempt to repeat everything that has been said, but this amendment will interfere with a number of projects already started. In Dallas alone, it will interfere with 64,000 jobs, with the capacity to increase the worth and the amount of revenue into the billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will stop transportation routes that have already begun, that would get people to work, to their homes, and then provide jobs. I would ask all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we debate China's most-favored nation status, we must view American policy toward China with consideration of many issues. Those issues include human rights, trade, the peaceful transition of Hong Kong and weapons proliferation. Human rights must continue to be a vital consideration as America formulates its policy toward China, as well as policy toward other areas of the world. Obviously, we are all concerned about China's recent behavior, and the detention of American Harry Wu. Regardless of our action here tonight, Mr. Wu must be released, and we should continue to pursue that result. However, the United States must pursue policies which are specific to each of the issues which affect our relationship to China in order to achieve positive results. The continuation of China's most-favored-nation status is a necessary part of America's policy toward China. To be effective, to spread the word of freedom around the world, America must continue to be engaged in world events. Through American influence, positive changes can be made in other societies, including China. The transfer of information, which our trade relationship provides, is crucial to achieving change in China, without MFN, this change will not occur.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Jane Douglas Chapter of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution for designating September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week. Constitution Week commemorates the 208th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Daughters of the American Revolution understand the importance of the provisions and principles contained in the Constitution. [[Page E 1470]] Recognition of this historic event is an opportunity for all Americans to realize the achievements of the Framers of the Constitution and the rights, privileges, and responsibilities it affords. Again, I commend the Jane Douglas Chapter of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, for its genuine effort in urging all our citizens to reflect during Constitution Week on the many benefits of our Federal Constitution and American citizenship.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes Nos. 478, 479, 480, and 481 on H.R. 1868, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on all. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record immediately following rollcall vote No. 481.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the 74th Legislature, Regular Session, 1995 of the State of Texas for recognizing the importance of archiving our State records and hereby request on behalf of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House, and the Secretary of the State of Texas to place a copy of the Texas House Concurrent Resolution into the Congressional Record. House Concurrent Resolution Whereas, In response to an Act of Congress approved April 10, 1869, the 12th Legislature of the State of Texas convened in Provisional Session from February 8 to February 24, 1870, and ratified Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV to the United States Constitution; and Whereas, Those federal constitutional amendments, each ratified by separate joint resolutions of the 12th Legislature on February 15, 1870, solidified some of the most precious rights that have been guaranteed constitutionally to Americans, particularly ethnic minorities who were granted the blessings of equal citizenship and the beginning of an end to their past oppression; and Whereas, Amendment XIII eliminated forever the practice of slavery, Amendment XIV promised due process and the equal protection of the laws, and Amendment XV prohibited denial of suffrage on the grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and Whereas, Over time, copies of the three resolutions regrettably have vanished from the holdings of the Texas state archives, yet others are preserved in Washington, D.C., by virtue of their certification and transmittal to the Secretary of State of the United States and to the presiding officers of the United States Congress; and Whereas, The 1995 Regular Session of the 74th Legislature coincides with the 125th anniversary of these historic ratification actions and marks an appropriate time for the conveyance to this state of replicas of the three resolutions so that Texans may view and appreciate a series of documents that have played such an important role in the extension and elaboration of their civil rights: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the 74th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 1995, hereby respectfully request the National Archives and Records Administration to make copies of the joint resolutions of the 12th Texas Legislature ratifying Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV to the United States Constitution and transmit those copies to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission for placement in the state archives: And, be it further Resolved, That the Texas secretary of state forward copies of this resolution to the archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration, to the vice-president of the United States and speaker of the United States House of Representatives with a request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record, and to all members of the Texas delegation to the United States Congress, as an official request to the federal government by the 74th Legislature of the State of Texas: And, be it further Resolved, That if and when such replicas are received from the National Archives and Records Administration, the Texas State Library and Archives Commission be hereby directed to place them in the holdings of the state archives to be available for public viewing and photocopying and in all other respects to be treated as any other material worthy of archival storage and retrieval.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Congressional Back Caucus substitute budget for fiscal year 1996. The CBC substitute is a caring budget, it shows compassion for the American people and is one that the American people can be proud of. It not only balances the budget, the measure is responsive to the housing, health, education, and employment training needs of the American people. Unlike the Republicans' budget proposals, House Concurrent Resolution 67, which holds our elderly hostage to their compromised health care condition and economic status, the Congressional Black Caucus substitute treats our elderly with the dignity and respect that they not only deserve--but have earned. Adequate funding is provided for the older Americans' programs, including essential nutrition programs, low-income home-energy assistance, and assisted housing. Medicare is preserved. The lives of more 2,000,000 Medicare seniors in Texas would be dramatically impacted, and by the year 2002 each Medicare senior in Texas would be asked to pay an additional $1,112 out-of-pocket expenses. Each would be forced to pay $4,000 more for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 to make up for the cuts. We want the future to be free but not on the backs of seniors and those most vulnerable. Unlike the Republicans' budget proposal which forces our elderly to choose between food and heat, under the CBC alternative their quality of life is enhanced. The CBC substitute is also kind to our Nation's children, including those yet to be born. It provides adequate funding for Healthy Start, Child Care, and Head Start. Our children are our future. They have placed their future in our hands, we cannot sacrifice the trust. In addition, the CBC substitute budget strengthens support for higher education, student aid, TRIO, education for the disadvantaged, school reform, biomedical research, and community infrastructure. The CBC has heard the voice of the American people, and responded with a sound budget that is fair, responsible, and overturns the Republicans' assault on our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--the children, the elderly, the Veterans, and hard-working families. The Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget stands on its own merits. We know we must maintain a strong national defense--but we also know we must establish our fiscal policy and priorities in a responsible and compassionate manner.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that all of us do not represent districts that are exactly alike. My district is very similar to Congressman Becerra's. We have right now a Superfund site. I do not think we can address water in this country without addressing health status in this country. And unfortunately, this bill which is before us fails to address this issue from the standpoint of public health. This poses a very serious problem. In families with annual incomes at or below poverty, almost 70 percent of black children suffer from high lead blood levels, while only 36 percent, which is much too high, of the nonblack children. Blood poisoning is the most preventable disease that we can address. It is identifiable. We just need the protections to do it. We know what levels; our scientific levels and science has taught us that. What we need now are standards that ensure that all of our citizens are protected. Women living less than 1 mile from a hazardous waste site have a 12-percent higher risk of having a child with a birth defect than other mothers. Three million homes or 74 percent of all private housing built before 1980 contains some lead paint. Minority and low-income people are more likely to live in these older homes. The lead which they are exposed to is stored in the bone, and later calcium and lead are released into the bloodstream, placing these people, particularly women, at risk for continuing lead poisoning many years later. We are considering now the costs of health care. We cannot do that in a vacuum. We must consider all of the things that lead to a large price tag when we talk about the cost of health care. We cannot afford to ignore a very preventable illness that is so common among the poor. We cannot stand here and say that we are upholding our oath without remembering that we have a large percentage of poor people and poor children in this country, and they live in the areas that many of us might not see, but that does not mean they do not exist. The clean water bill now before us is notably silent about these and other important issues relating to the health of minorities and low- income Americans. These amendments offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins] take an important step toward addressing these concerns, and I urge this body, I urge my colleagues who might not know of these kinds of areas, to please give serious consideration in supporting these amendments.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, you know being a nurse you understand the importance of nutrition. It did not start with children. Poor nutrition was recognized back during World War II when we found that our soldiers were not quite prepared and when they looked for the reason it was because they did not have proper nutrition. So it stands to reason if our soldiers were not prepared without proper nutrition our children simply cannot be. They cannot be healthy adults unless they have access to some nutrition as children. We have heard that the nutrition programs for children will not be cut. I simply want to call our attention to this graph. If it is not going to be cut, then what does this mean? If it is going to be cut, this $13.6 billion dollars, $7 billion to bring it up to $13.6 billion by the year 2000, when it should be $15.9 billion, is that a cut with more and more children eligible for school nutrition? We must look after the health of our children to have a healthy Nation. We are not asking for welfare for adults. We simply want attention being given to our children. Do not punish the children for what parents do not do.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn. I appreciate your efforts and leadership. Affirmative action is a phrase that has caused a great deal of noise and potential separation in this country. And yet, it was brought about for a remedy. The only reason why the phrase was ever devised is to address inequities in this country. Frequently we have said that this nation has come as far as it has with less than half of its brain power. One of the reasons why we say that is because women and minorities have been virtually ignored. Affirmative action actually started under President Richard Nixon, who recognized the inequities that existed and recognized the loss to this country. First of all, if there are no opportunities for minorities to have decent jobs and have an opportunity to move up, then they are not going to pay the taxes that they ought to be paying because every one ought to share that. However, you cannot pay if you do not make it. I think that some think that the only persons that have been helped have been black Americans. That is so far from the truth. First, I think it is well-known that persons who have gained most by affirmative action have been white females. However, beyond that, especially in my State of Texas, short men, short white men, have gained an opportunity to be members of the Texas Rangers, who had a ceiling, a base on how tall one must be to be a Texas Ranger. I do not know if that meant that they had to be tall enough for someone to look in their faces upward when they stopped their cars on the Texas highways, or what, but it was discriminatory. It had eliminated virtually all Mexican-Americans in Texas from becoming Texas Rangers. Blacks were, perhaps, eliminated for other reasons. Also, white males that were short had been eliminated from being hired. To remove this kind of discriminatory measure that really had no force, had no reason to be there, offered first opportunities to white males quicker than anyone else, because that is always the case. 100 percent of the persons who have been President of this country have been white males; 90 percent of the ones who make up this body where we serve are white males. I do not know that any affirmative action program has served to hurt white males. It helped white males to get jobs on Southwest Airlines, when men brought a suit because they were eliminated from being hired as airline attendants, too, have now started to hire. Most of the diversity went to white males when the change came. I started out as a young professional, before I was old enough to vote, at the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Dallas as a registered professional nurse. The majority of the patients were male. That is because the majority of the veterans were male. The majority of the nurses were female, because traditionally, nursing had been thought of as a female profession in this country. Therefore, most of the nursing assistants had to be male, because of lifting, privacy. However, that has changed, now. Why did it change? Because of sensitivity. Affirmative action has brought about more sensitivity than any other measure, and recognizing that perhaps whole groups of people have been left out of professions that have something to offer if they felt there were opportunities within those professions. Mr. Speaker, this affirmative action is not just for black Americans, though most battles to do with civil rights have been fought by black Americans, but we are the last ones that receive most of the benefit from many of the battles that we fight. However, that is OK, because what is good for us is good for America. Fairness and opportunity are good for all Americans. Now we talk about being a global society, and a leader in the global world. We cannot be global leaders, eliminating and ignoring and not including diversity. Mr. Speaker, we say we are a nation of nations, and if we are, and we are, we have to be diverse. Every American must feel that there is an opportunity. The Constitution guarantees that, and it is recognized that we did not get covered by the Constitution until later in its history, because, you know, just 50 years ago, in 1944, were blacks able to vote in the primary in Texas, just 50 years ago. Laws had to be passed, lawsuits, lots of time in court, just to get the right to cast a vote. We have done a lot for this country. We have fought very, very vigorously in every war. We have brought about the opportunities for diversity in this country. We have brought the attention to the need for diversity in this country. I think if we do nothing else, we need to continue to educate the people of this Nation that affirmative action is for all people. There have been opportunities for non-blacks to work for Members of this Congress that are black. I think that is important. I think it is important to have those kinds of relationships and those opportunities, but without that sensitivity, without the idea of affirmative action, I am not a quota supporter, because it implies just putting someone in the place, whether they are qualified or not. I do not support that. It is not necessary. There are numerous people that, given the opportunity, could do a good job, and perhaps even a better job. Mr. Speaker, a large number of the athletes professionally in this country are black Americans. How many black Americans own clubs and organizations? I think they are 100 percent owned by white males, or at least 95 percent. There might be one or two white females that open them. So who needs affirmative action? The sensitivity needs to go to the minds of white Americans, that is who needs it, to remind them to be fair, to remind them that this is supposed to be a color-blind society. However, when it goes blind, it does not see color at all. That is all we are attempting to do, is sensitize. I hope to live to see the day that we will have a color-blind society. We seem to fade into obscurity without some rules, without some reminders that this country has offered fairness as one of its core foundation rules. It just so happens that unless reminded, a large group of people get left out. Our intent, Mr. Speaker, is to sensitize, to educate, and we are not going away. We are here for the long haul. We want to see affirmative action live. We want to see it live in behavior. We want to work, we want to earn, we want to be responsible, but we cannot do it without an effort to give us an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a battle worth fighting, and I really hate to see the exploitation that is being promised now to the American people to use race as dividing and bringing about lots of expression of hate in this country by running for President to get rid of affirmative action. I think that is a very, very slimy way to attempt to fool the American people and exploit the emotions of people who feel that they have been mistreated. I think we need to study the issue, I think we need to see if it is working, where it is working, and who it is working for, and we need some more sensitivity training, perhaps, but it is not going away. We will not allow it to go away. This is America, a nation of nations .

Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I let me just share very quickly that my father told me that the reason why he did not want to go to college is because he did not want to teach or preach, he wanted to be a businessman. The opportunities did not exist. So, therefore, there was no encouragement to go on for education. He made a very good living and was a very good father to all of us. Times have changed, and we do not want to go back. We want our young people to understand that if they choose a non-traditional profession, if they choose to be a scientist, if they choose to be a physician, the opportunities will be there and those opportunities have not always been there. I remember when Texas paid black students to leave the State to go to medical school. We do not have to do that anymore, but we do not want to go back. We do not want to go back where we were. When young people see that their parents have an opportunity because they stayed in school, they do not have to continue to struggle because they cannot get a contract because they prepared themselves well, then young people will be encouraged to do the right thing and to be well qualified for jobs and professions that they would like to contribute. But if we go back, we will say to the world, as a global leader that in this country we do not treat all people the same, all people do not have an opportunity, and so take to the streets, break the law. Those are the opportunities you have. We do not want to go back. We would plead with the people, let us go forward. This is America where all people are supposed to have a right to the dream, and the only way that we have had a real little glimpse at that dream is through opportunity. I thank the gentleman very much for having this session tonight.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anyone here on either side of the aisle defend the present welfare system. All of us want change. The difference is, on my side of the aisle, we do not want extremism. We do not want a system that is going to just punish and not find a way out for independence. I am from Texas, and I can tell the Members that the child nutrition program has been helpful. Every report tells us that once the program started, children are attending school better, their attention span is longer, and they are achieving grades. We cannot, as a nation who cares, send our children through life without some kind of caring. Mr. Speaker, if we want to create 50 new bureaucracies by sending it to the States, then we will have more government than we ever bargained for. State's rights for poor children in Texas has never worked. One out of every nine children in Texas is now hungry. Almost half of the low-income families are now hungry. Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Members that most of these families have at least one working person. Are we going to throw our children to the wolves to give a tax break for the rich? I hope not.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I, like everyone else, say we need to deal with this kind of legislation, but this piece of legislation goes too far. It is too extreme. Title II of H.R. 1022 provides new decisional criteria that elevate flexibility for industry and cost reduction above public health and safety. The bill rescinds the decisional criteria for balancing harms and benefits, both public and private, both known and unknown, that have been built into the Federal environmental protection legislation over the past 25 years. It requires EPA to bear the burden of proof that the benefits of regulatory actions are worth it. What this means in real terms is that the vulnerable Americans--the sick, the elderly, the newborn--can no longer be protected because their protection is too expensive. This also means that EPA would not be able to take any action that addresses many current health hazards, such as preventing the reoccurrence in the Nation's water supply of various bacterial diseases like the one that killed numerous people in Milwaukee and caused 400,000 illnesses, preventing the 70,000 deaths estimated to be caused each year by breathing air laden with fine particles or reducing airborne emission dioxin from waste incinerators located in residential communities. Mr. Chairman, I know firsthand about many of these kinds of conditions. This puts people's lives at risk. Mr. Chairman, title II of H.R. 1022 provides new decisional criteria that elevate flexibility for industry and cost reduction above public health and safety. The bill rescinds the decisional criteria for balancing harms and benefits, both public and private, both known and unknown, that have been built into all Federal environmental protection legislation over the past 25 years. It requires EPA to bear the burden of proof that the benefits of regulatory action are worth it. What this means in real terms is that vulnerable Americans--the sick, the elderly, the newborn--can no longer be protected because their protection is too expensive. This also means that EPA would not be able to take any action to address many current health hazards, such as preventing the recurrence in the Nation's water supply of microbial diseases like the one that killed numerous people in Milwaukee and caused 400,000 illnesses, preventing the 70,000 deaths estimated to be caused each year by breathing air laden with fine particles, or reducing the airborne emissions of dioxin from waste incinerators located near residential communities. background Section 202(a) requires that the benefits of any major rule to protect health, safety, or the environment--one resulting in an increase in cost of $25 million or more--justify and be related to, the costs of the rule. That section also requires that there be no regulatory or nonregulatory option that could achieve similar benefits in a more cost-effective manner or in a manner providing more flexibility to the regulated entities. These requirements must be met by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record (section 202(b)(2)), a higher standard for agency rulemaking than the ``arbitrary and capricious'' standard required for agency rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure Act [APA]. As a result, this bill supersedes, and rescinds, the decisional criteria for balancing harms and benefits built into all current Federal environmental laws. The mandates of environmental statutes that EPA rulemaking be necessary to protect human health or the environment--RCRA hazardous waste requirements--or provide an adequate margin of safety (Clean Air Act) or prevent the endangerment of drinking water supplies (Safe Drinking Water Act), to use just a few examples, would be fundamentally altered. Instead, EPA's rules under all environmental statutes would need to be based on a demonstration that the benefits of the action ``justify'' the costs and that there are no other options, including non-regulatory options, that are more cost-effective. Because of the substantial evidence standard, EPA will need to quantify costs and benefits to the extent possible. And, since many of the public and private benefits of environmental regulation are difficult to identify, let alone quantify, public health and environment will always be on the losing side of this kind of analysis. And the biggest losers in this kind of analysis are people who are the most expensive to protect: infants, older Americans, people with serious illnesses, people in rural areas, and people who live in low income areas. Prolonging the life of persons who are the most vulnerable may have little economic value. Similiarly, preventing people from becoming ill, a major benefit of new drinking water protection rules, for example, has little dollar value and would be unlikely to survive this analysis. As a result, EPA would not be able to require the additional water treatment that would prevent the recurrence of incidents such as the outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in the Milwaukee water supply that resulted in an estimated hundred deaths and over 400,000 illnesses. EPA would also have great difficulty justifying new Clean Air Act standards to protect children from lead poisoning, asthmatics from sulfur dioxide, and cardiac patients from carbon monoxide. EPA would also not be able to revise the outdated rules for hazardous waste incinerators located in or near residential communities.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute. I have some serious concerns about H.R. 1022, which is before us today. It started out with the best of intentions: reforming the Federal regulatory system. We all agree that change is needed in this system and change is starting to occur, in the Clinton Executive Order No. 12866, in the Reinventing Government work, and on a number of fronts in individual agencies. I think that most of us agree that any legislative measure to speed this change in a constructive direction is welcome. What is not welcome is the bill that has emerged from Committee consideration. Somewhere between the original intent of this bill, something has gone wrong. The problems with this bill are so extensive that only a substitute measure can correct them, and for that reason I am supporting the Brown Substitute. Let me give you a single example of the problems with H.R. 1022. The bill, in Section 201(b)(1) states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, the decision criteria of section (a) shall supplement and, to the extent there is a conflict, supersede the decision criteria for rulemaking other wise applicable under the statute pursuant to which the rule is promulgated. This single sentence overrides every existing statute and imposes the risk analysis and benefits calculation process outlined in this bill. Where is the list of these statutes that are being overridden? It does not exist. During committee markup, the comprehensive list of statutes was requested, but was not available. The report accompanying H.R. 9, the original legislation from which this bill was derived, has a simple table outlining some of the statutes overridden. But it is not complete, nor do we know today what the impact of approving this sentence will be. And this is not a partisan concern. Republican Members of the Science Committee observed in the report on H.R. 9, which contains this same preemptive language: (T)itle III may undermine landmark laws that were enacted only after years of work and discussion to create a delicate balance of interested and affected parties--laws that range from protection of food and drinking water quality, to aviation safety, to hazardous waste management, and preservation of wildlife. (Supplemental Views, Report # 103- 33, Part 2.) The Brown substitute contains a savings clause that makes its provisions in addition to and not in place of the provisions of existing law. That is the sane way to legislate. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the 1995 National Black History theme represents a milestone in the life of black Americans. It causes us to reflect on the visions of three men who were repressed by slavery, disillusioned by the Bill of Rights, and despite these setbacks--championed the cause for freedom through vigilant and aggressive action. These three individuals, Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. DuBois, and Booker T. Washington, were prolific scholars and great leaders. Their determination to change the course of history for black Americans, planted the seeds of progress that later blossomed into the political and economic freedom that we continue to cultivate. The course of history for black Americans was greatly influenced by these three giants, whose visions have seen a nation through 300 years of conflict. As we celebrate Black History Month, it is important to remember these men * * * who have been termed our first ``civil rights generals'' in a war that seems to never end. Mr. Speaker, I want to use my time today to pay tribute to a group of Americans who have given their lives in wars of a different kind: Black Americans who have proudly served their country in the military. It is not news that more than 25 percent of the young men and women who served our country in the Persian Gulf were black. Were it not for the more than 100,000 thousand black soldiers, sailors, and airmen, former President Bush probably could not have launched the war to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Nor is it news, Mr. Speaker, that a disproportionate number of black Americans served in Vietnam. But it is important to remember that black Americans have served in every battle in which this country was ever engaged. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can go all the way back to the American Revolution, the first war in our country's history. In the most serious clash between the Americans and the British--the Boston Massacre of 1770--one of the five colonists who fell in action was a runaway slave, Crispus Attucks. Gen. Andrew Jackson, this country's seventh President, heaped the greatest praise upon the thousands of black soldiers who played a decisive role in the War of 1812. In the Civil War--this country's bloodiest battle--the question for blacks was this: Would they remain loyal to their immediate oppressors who owned them outright, or would they sacrifice their very lives for the freedom of their race and their country? The answer was simple. Nearly 200,000 black combat troops fought in the Union Army, and one in every four men in the Union Navy was black. In this country's First World War, the most famous of the eight Black regiments was unquestionably the ``Fighting 369th.'' In 1918, this unit went into action and remained on the front lines for 191 consecutive days--``Without losing a trench, retreating an inch, or surrendering a prisoner.'' Upon their triumphant return to this country, Dr. W.E.B. DuBois served notice on America that returning black servicemen meant to realize full equality under the law as first-class citizens. He said: We stand again to look America squarely in the face. It lynches, It disenfranchises, It insults us.--we return fighting. Make way for democracy. We saved it in France, and we will save it in the U.S.A. On the infamous morning of December 7, 1941, when Japanese fighters flew over Pearl Harbor and rained a hail of bombs and bullets on the slumbering U.S. Naval Base, Dorie Miller, A black messman, was going about his duties collecting the laundry, when the sounds of battle sirens and exploding shells rent the air. Miller rushed up on deck, and instantly hauled his wounded captain to safety. Moments later, he sprung into action behind an anti-aircraft gun he had never been trained to operate. Firing calmly and accurately, he brought down four zero fighter planes before the cry to abandon ship was heeded by all survivors. On May 7, 1942, this great seaman was cited for bravery by Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, who decorated him with a Silver Star, and so acknowledged the Nation's debt to a black man of ``extraordinary courage.'' Mr. Speaker, as a child I can remember assisting my father in his plans to welcome home Dorie Miller, a fellow Texan. As a Member of congress, I have introduced legislation to pay the appropriate tribute to this great American, who fought so nobly for his country, the Congressional Medal of Honor. The experience of settling America, and the burden of defending it, have been shared by many groups of people. As one historian has noted-- blacks, too, have built this Nation, forged its destiny in peace, and defended it in war. Black men and women began serving America long before the Nation had come into being, and have fought long and honorably in every major American conflict since. America is free because, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``Though they have often been reduced to a `fifty percent citizen' on American soil, black soldiers have always been one hundred percent citizens in warfare.'' Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and proper that we recognize and honor the vast contributions to this Nation's military history, and this country's freedom, by black men and women who have fought and died for a better world.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the last few days I have gotten a tremendous number of calls from people concerned about what might happen to the minimum wage. One of the reasons why much of that concern is coming is because I represent a district right next to one of our leaders here, Mr. Armey, who has been talking about doing away with the minimum wage altogether and talks about Charlie, who lost his job because of an increase in the minimum wage back in 1977. Well, they tell me that is not true, and I saw in the Washington Post yesterday that it was proven that was not a true story. I simply ask, Mr. Speaker, that when our leaders get up to attempt to talk about why they want certain policies, they should just tell the truth. No one has lost a job because of an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of us to look very closely at what we pledge when we say, ``with liberty and justice for all.'' Our working poor have to be considered. We cannot expect that all of us will know how to make decisions if we do not have at least a minimum truth in our support of the minimum wage.