Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and I hope he can give me an answer to it. The current language of H.R. 1432 suggests absolutely no relationship between the development of businesses in Africa and the participation of African-American entrepreneurs, negotiators, lawyers, accountants, brokers to facilitate that business. I am interested, on either side, of those who are proponents of the bill whether or not they can name just a company, one African-American shipping company that will be the beneficiary under this bill.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this debate is in serious need of a historical perspective. The earliest trade policy of the United States, even before the Declaration of Independence, in 1619, involved African kings and potentates selling other common Africans to shipping companies owned by whites to be sold as exploited slaves and slave masters in the new territory. I have been to West Africa. I have seen the infrastructure of West African participation in the transatlantic slave trade. I have been to Jamestown and Charleston and seen the historic sites of events which precipitated the Civil War, the bloodiest war in American history. The agricultural, shipping and plantation companies and communities served primarily as the infrastructure for American complicity in this trade policy. The question before this Congress today of who benefited then and who benefits now is really the gravamen of this debate. As we seek to establish a new trading paradigm between African nations and America, it is critically important that the new trading arrangement create a mutually beneficial partnership between black people in Africa and African Americans in the United States, which I believe will benefit all Americans. It is the only way that historical boats stuck at the bottom will become participants in a new trading relationship.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, two questions for the gentlewoman. I am wondering, does the bill require American businesses to invest in the education and training of Africans and to hire and value African employees? And what knowledge, if any, does the gentlewoman have about multinational corporations here in America who stand to benefit from the bill, as to whether or not they have been supportive of affirmative action at home, so that African Americans can also be the beneficiaries of such a trade policy?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is the gentleman aware of any African countries being forced to cut corporate taxes, privatize, and shrink their government services, or grant expanded rights to foreign investors under the bill?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the efforts and accomplishments of my constituent, Mr. Jesse Brown, who helps people and families look to and plan for the future. Mr. Brown, the president and chief executive officer of RENCO, a national money management firm, works assiduously to ensure that the reluctant, uninitiated, and underinvested have the opportunity to engage in the market now, in order to get their piece of the pie later. Unfortunately, many of my constituents on the South Side of Chicago and in the south suburbs, have not benefited from the reportedly robust economy. For those in my district with skills and no decent-paying job, with children but no child care, with health concerns yet no health care coverage, the current boom seems more like a bust. Too many of my constituents live day-to-day and paycheck-to-paycheck; at wit's end while trying to make the ends meet. Although the stock market plunge in October made headlines in almost every paper in the country, for them, the scare was not new or news. Their angst and insecurity is constant and simmering. Yet, Mr. Brown goes to the places where my constituents gather--at civic halls, at church meetings, and at community forums--to give some fiscal guidance and good news. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Brown described his mission to spread the word of financial prosperity. Surely, those words are falling on receptive ears. Mr. Brown takes the principles and parlance of Wall Street to Main Street, so that more people near the margins might step into the winner's circle. Knowing that his potential clients may distrust banks and brokers, Mr. Brown ventures beyond the Loop and Lasalle Street to be wherever they are. Undoubtedly, Mr. Brown knows that families are at the point of challenge--struggling to stretch their incomes to provide for eager children preparing for college at one end and ailing parents with escalating needs at the other. In the middle of this cross-generational pull, lay baby boomers, who are preparing for their own retirement, and concerned about the fate of both the Social Security and Medicare programs. In response to the familial quandary, Mr. Brown prescribes an old-fashioned tenet, with a newfangled twist: take money from each paycheck and instead of hiding it under the mattress or in the shoe box, put it into mutual funds, stocks or bonds. Mr. Brown assures that the short-term sacrifice yields long-term security. Most recently, Mr. Brown has encapsulated his advice and formula for financial success between the covers of his first book, ``Pay Yourself First.'' As a result, Mr. Brown's work, more of my constituents are learning of and investing in the historic bull market, and growing larger nest eggs. Thus, while helping to grow the Nation's economy, families from my district are meeting their tough financial challenges. From their perspective, the coming years now seem more promising and prosperous. On their behalf, I commend the outstanding contributions that Mr. Brown has made to their lives and to the district.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant, and my constituent, Mr. Roy O. Carroll, Jr., in his first year of retirement from the Chicago Fire Department after 35 years of committed service to our great city. In 1962, when Mr. Carroll began his career with the department, 150 African-Americans served on a force of 5,400 in segregated firehouses, and in segregated neighborhoods. The overcrowded and inferior living conditions suffered by African-Americans at that time created a dangerous atmosphere which was rife with the potential for fires and emergencies. As a result, the black fire engines, numbered 16, 45, 19, and 48, were the busiest companies in the city, and perhaps in the world, averaging from 3,700 to 4,500 runs per year. In 1980, Mr. Carroll joined my father, the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., in a successful effort to settle a month-long firefighters' strike. In 1982, he was promoted to the position of lieutenant, and in 1991, Mr. Carroll was again promoted to lead the force as captain. Additionally, during the period from 1991 to 1996, he served as assistant bureau commander of the West Side Fire Prevention Bureau. After this impressive tenure of committed public service, Mr. Carroll retired from the department on November 15, 1996. Mr. Carroll's commitment to his community, his Nation, and the world extended well beyond his career with the Chicago Fire Department. He served his country honorably in the Korean conflict, and continued his service to the Nation upon his return. Closer to home, as chairman of the 111th Street Business Association, member of the Morgan Park Community Roots Organization, founding member of the Umoja Business Alliance, and senior vice commander of the Captain John Daniels VFW Post No. 111 in Chicago, and as griot of the Safari Marketplace empowerment group of manufacturers, designers, and distributors, Mr. Carroll has brought to task his leadership skills. Mr. Carroll, a loyal husband, father of three and grandfather of three, deserves our most humble commendation. Mr. Speaker, our city, our Nation, and, indeed, the world community owe him a debt of gratitude for his valuable contributions and public service.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by giving honor and praise to God for the life of Walter Capps. Many of us live our lives as if life is certain and death is uncertain. The reality is, life is uncertain and death is certain. While many of us today have been given 60 seconds to talk about the life of our good friend, Walter Capps, 60 seconds, 120 seconds, 180 seconds by no means can express the depth of sorrow of what this country and this House has lost on this occasion. Walter Capps could be seen in this House not so much talking to most Members of this body, but standing in the first three rows of this aisle on a regular basis talking with Dr. Ford about some of the great spiritual as well as philosophical differences that exist within this House. Members of Congress from ages ago stood in the old House Chamber without cameras, and above the Speaker's chair is Clio there watching over the work of Members of Congress as they deliberated upon posterity of ideals of liberty for all people. Today in the House of Representatives there is no Clio over the Speaker's chair, as Walter Capps would tell us; there are simply C-SPAN cameras. So Members of Congress come to the floor, not only as representatives of their district, but they come to this floor in part as entertainers seeking reelection. No, Walter Capps was not out of place in the House of Representatives, we are out of place in the House of Representatives. Walter Capps was reflective upon the decisions that Members of this body were entrusted to make. He was a minister. He led a complete life: His outward reach and concern for God, something bigger than himself; ideals that were bigger than himself; his concern for humanity. That is why he ran for Congress and won and represented people other than himself. But also his concern, which was healthy for himself, his wife, and his children. We will miss Walter Capps, not because of the short amount of time that he spent in the House of Representatives, but because of the amount of time that he spent and the quality of that time, Mr. Speaker. We give honor and praise to God for his time well served.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the merits of affirmative action is not what this amendment is about. We'll get our opportunity to engage in that debate when we consider the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1997 which is sponsored by Mr. Canady. The question posed by this amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Riggs, is whether, by popular sovereignty, a State can undermine, and in fact, ignore the law of the land, and prohibit the Federal Government from enforcing the Federal law. By prohibiting the Department of Education from withholding assistance to institutions which do not comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this provision will set a very dangerous precedent indeed. We must not, as a national legislative body, endanger the national interest, and the stability of our Union, by passing an amendment prohibiting the Federal Government from enforcing Federal law in California, or in any other State which seeks to negate the national will of our citizenry, as codified in our law. The law of the land requires that public educational institutions that receive Federal funds may not discriminate in admissions. Title 42 of the United States Code, section 2000d declares that: no person * * * shall on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. In implementing title VI's mandate for equality of opportunity in public education, the Code of Federal Regulations section 100.3(b)(6) provides that if an institution's: noncompliance or threatened noncompliance cannot be corrected by informal means, compliance * * * may be effected by the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance or by any other means authorized by law * * * If we today, in a very shortsighted fashion, attempt to isolate this particular provision from the broader potential consequences, we will be doing ourselves, and more importantly, the Nation, a historic disservice. By allowing the State of California and other intended States to affirmatively reject Federal civil rights law--in effect, pick from the panoply of benefits associated with Federal law--Federal funds, whether for public education, or for highway and transportation projects, these same States must uphold the obligations associated with our republican form of government. History demonstrates that inherent in a State's effort to undermine Federal law is the fertile soil through which the seed of dissension is sown. If we allow Federal law to be undermined in this instance, who is then to stop tobacco growing States from holding a referendum on the tobacco settlement, or border States challenged by immigration issues from negating Federal immigration mandates, or States with lower per capita incomes from rejecting minimum wage increases. Mr. Chairman, the strength of the Union is contingent upon the ability of the Federal Government to enforce the goals of the Union. States must not be allowed to pick and choose, to embrace Federal benefits, while rejecting Federal protections. This body roundly embraces the notion of unfunded mandates--the guiding principle that we cannot, as a Federal legislative body, impose mandates on States and localities without adequately funding such mandates. The reverse is true as well. If Federal funds are granted to assist States in providing a quality education to its citizens, those States may not undermine title VI's mandate that these taxpayer dollars are expended in nondiscriminatory manner Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether you are for or against affirmative action, it is whether we can allow a State to ignore Federal law and undermine Federal enforcement of that law. A vote for this amendment is a vote prohibiting the Federal Government from enforcing a Federal law and in favor of exempting a State from complying with Federal law. In order to provide domestic tranquility, protect our national interest, and indeed build a more perfect union, Mr. Chairman, all Americans must have an equal opportunity to a quality public education. And, so colleagues, whether you are for affirmative action or not, that is not what this amendment is about. Do not vote to undermine our ability to enforce the provisions amongst the States we fight for on this floor on behalf of our constituents in our efforts to build a more perfect union. Mr. Chairman, on these grounds I urge a ``no''' vote on the gentleman's amendment, and yield back the balance of my time. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to the amendment offered by Representative Riggs of California. This amendment is nothing more than an effort to force the Department of Education to apply a Federal ban on affirmative actions programs in education in States that have passed proposition 209 like efforts. This is an attack on the Federal civil rights laws that so many have fought and even died to have enacted. This amendment would, in effect, prohibit the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from enforcing Federal civil rights laws. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and title IX of the Education amendments of 1972 would not be enforceable. This amendment effectively bars the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights from carrying out its statutory responsibility to enforce Federal antidiscrimination provisions relating to how Federal financial assistance is dispensed under a variety of education programs and activities. Even the most blatant cases of discrimination would have no remedy by the Department of Education if this amendment goes into effect. Additionally, this amendment prohibits the Office of Civil Rights from enforcing Federal civil rights laws in all 50 States, which creates a patchwork of civil rights enforcement. This goes against the uniform longstanding national policy of the uniform application of civil rights laws. While this amendment proports to apply only to Federal grant recipients located in States where State law, or a Federal court order prohibits the enforcement of affirmative action programs, we know the true effect of this damaging and dangerous amendment. It will set a difficult precedent for other efforts and amendments to ban all affirmative actions programs of the Federal Government. The Federal civil rights laws have proved monumental in bringing about real changes in American education and have improved the educational opportunities of millions of students. The Federal civil rights laws have been in place to preserve minorities' rights when States would not act. We need do nothing to promote State actions over Federal law as it relates to protecting civil rights. What has been the impact of civil rights laws in the United States? The dropout rate of African-American students--ages 16 to 24--declined from 22.9 percent in 1975 to 12.1 percent in 1995. Total minority enrollment at colleges and universities increased 63.4 percent in the past decade. Since 1990, the number of Latino and Hispanic students enrolled in higher education increased by 35 percent, the number of African-American students increased by 16 percent and the number of American-Indian students increased by 24 percent. We should stop this amendment in its tracks now, before it picks up steam and rolls over all of the hard work and tireless efforts of Americans of all creeds who have stated over and over again that affirmative action works. What are we really talking about when we talk about affirmative action? We are talking about diversity, opportunity, and the ability for persons who have historically not been able to gain access to education and jobs in this country to simply have access to these important arenas. The 160,000 members of the American Association of University Women have affirmed that affirmative action programs continue to expand equal opportunity for hundreds of women and minorities in education and employment. In 1992, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that only 6.6 percent of all working women were employed in nontraditional occupations. Women in nontraditional occupations earn 20 to 30 percent more than women in traditional occupations. Affirmative action programs in education and training open doors that were consistently slammed in the faces of women across this country. It allows opportunities for women and girls who might otherwise be tracked into low-wage, predominantly female jobs with little or even no opportunity for real advancement or economic independence. This amendment is premature. Proposition 209 in California is undecided law. There are serious constitutional challenges to proposition 209 which must be heard by the Supreme Court. In Texas, the Hopwood decision has resulted in a major setback for African-Americans and minorities to enter into graduate and undergraduate programs at public institutions. Among the freshman class of 6,500 students at the University of Texas, only 150 are African- American students. This is half of last year's enrolling class. At the law school, only 4 African-Americans and 26 Hispanics will be entering the first-year class. This is an outrage. What are we prohibiting when no one has acted yet. We are keeping qualified, energetic, and eager students from attending schools of higher education across this country. We are allowing blatant racism to go unpunished and unanswered if we allow this amendment to pass. I am pleased this amendment was eventually withdrawn.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about Africa, we should give direct loan guarantees to the country that we are serious about, just like we do for Egypt or for Israel. Direct loan guarantees is the way to be serious about investments in these countries. OPIC, however, is not the vehicle by which we should make these investments. The amendment reduces the administrative appropriation for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from $32 to $20.8 million. OPIC uses taxpayer money to provide direct loans and risk insurance to Fortune 500 companies, who are in turn firing American workers. One year ago, the President and this Congress put an end to a six- decade minimum floor of entitlements for poor people, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC. In my judgment, that minimal entitlement was justified on the basis of simple humanity and basic morality. But that view was defeated, and the minimum floor was pulled from underneath the poor. Yet, the corporations, many of whom have been lobbying us all week long, want to continue their AFDC program, or aid for dependent corporations, with their record profits and management salaries and benefits. They have no such humanitarian claim or moral claim to this particular subsidy. The cost to American taxpayers and workers simply cannot be justified. OPIC bestows upon these corporations welfare through direct loans, subsidized loan guarantees, and political risk insurance. Imagine that, a Fortune 500 company needing political risk insurance in a Third World country. With the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and backing of business ventures, OPIC's corporate clients have eliminated thousands of American jobs. With the destabilizing effects of corporate downsizing on American workers and their families, we should not be providing these incentives for America's corporate giants to invest abroad, taking advantage of low-wage costs, lower standards, and often exploitive working conditions of the Third World. Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, we must raise their standards, the standards of people in the Third World, not lower ours to meet theirs in an increasingly global economy. Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about Africa and serious about the Third World, let us give the same kinds of loan guarantees to African nations that we also give to Israel and to Egypt. That is fair. Vote in support of the Royce- Andrews-Kasich amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me once again rise to challenge a couple of arguments that I heard in support of this amendment and certainly congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for an outstanding speech that he just gave. No truer words could have ever been spoken in support of this particular amendment. I want to go back to Africa for a moment, because several of my colleagues since I spoke initially indicated that these corporations subsequently invest in Africa. In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, if we really trust African leaders, again, we should do for Africa what we do for Israel and what we do for Egypt, give them direct loan guarantees. Nothing could be more paternalistic than to say that the only way we are going to invest in Africa is through a U.S. corporation in an undemocratic, un-American regime, and put the U.S. taxpayer dollars at high risk if in fact that government is toppled and we find ourselves on the wrong side of the human rights equation. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Royce-Andrews- Kasich amendment. I would encourage my colleagues, particularly those colleagues who voted in support of reducing this program in the last Congress, an opportunity to vote again on behalf of the side of the working people in our own country.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Royce-Andrews-Kasich amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment that reduces the administrative appropriation for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, from $32 million to $20.8 million. OPIC uses taxpayer money to provide direct loans and risk insurance to Fortune 500 companies, who in turn are firing American workers. One year ago, Congress and the President put an end to the six-decade floor beneath the aid to families with dependent children, or AFDC, a minimus program justified on the basis of simple humanity and basic morality, yet the corporations want to continue their AFDC program, Aid For Dependent Corporations. With their record profits and management salary and benefits, they have no such humanitarian or moral claim. The cost to American taxpayers and workers cannot be justified. With the destabilizing effects of corporate downsizing on American workers and their families, we should not be providing incentives for America's corporate giants to invest abroad, taking advantage of low wage cost, lower standards, and often exploitative working conditions of Third World countries rather than reinvesting and creating jobs at home. We need to raise the developing country standards, not lower our own in an ever-increasing global economy.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's argument that the distressed communities who would be the beneficiaries of the additional appropriation, the $125 million, should be penalized because of bad paperwork by the administration?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama which freezes the funding levels for the Community Development Financial Institution Fund at last year's level of $50 million despite the bipartisan budget agreement's increase in this valuable economic empowerment program to $125 million. The administration and congressional leadership in fact agreed to this increase precisely because CDFI is a win-win for all parties involved. These investment funds are matched in the private sector and then used to create jobs, promote small businesses and build affordable housing in communities across the Nation. While I thank the gentleman for his diligence in shedding light on poor management decisions in the first year at the fund and appreciate his help in ensuring that this worthy program will in the future be run efficiently according to new reforms, I must nonetheless take issue with his conclusion that the program should not in any way be hindered from meeting its critical goals of revitalizing distressed communities. The only arguments that I have heard from the other side thus far are that the beneficiaries of these programs, those distressed communities, should be penalized until the Federal Government resolves its bureaucratic problem of paperwork. I am making an argument that today we should not cease the fundings or freeze the fundings for these communities that so desperately need the resources while our investigations, which I might add I raise questions about those investigations, because I just got off the phone a few minutes ago with South Shorebank and the bank corporation and they have indicated in the course of this investigation they have never so much as been contacted by the investigators in the majority party on this particular issue. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, serving the people of the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, I have had the special honor and privilege of becoming intimately familiar with the exemplary organization and national leadership in community development lending that Shorebank and its holding company, Shorebank Corp., has exemplified as 1 of the 31 recipients of this year's CFDI fund awards. Thus, based upon my personal knowledge, I feel compelled to take issue with the gentleman's allegations that the recipients were not awarded CDFI funds meritoriously, but rather were the beneficiaries of some sort of political favoritism based upon connections with the Clinton administration. Shorebank and the Shorebank Corp. have been involved in community development long before the Clinton administration became an administration in Washington. They are a model, an exemplary model that the President has talked about in many speeches across this country. Mr. Chairman, CDFI's statutory language defines an affiliate as it is defined in section 2(k) of the Bank Company Holding Act as-- Any company that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another company. Shorebank has never owned, controlled or voted any voting securities of the 3 CDFIs in question, nor has it ever controlled the election of a majority of directors or trustees of any other CDFIs. Nor has the Federal Reserve ever determined that Shorebank exercises a controlling influence over any other CDFI. There are business relationships between Shorebank and other CDFIs through its consulting subsidiary, but at no point in time have they ever exercised undue influence. Mr. Chairman, there were no violations of statutory limits. The enacting statute prohibits the fund from providing over $5 million to one of these CDFIs and Shorebank Corp. has only received $4.5 million. The claims of political favoritism are also unfounded. In fact, to assert such claims is actually insulting to those communities which have been blessed by the innovative and immensely successful revitalization efforts spearheaded by Shorebank and other community development lenders. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to join me in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's understanding from the report based upon the investigations that he has received that they have never, or have they ever contacted Shorebank or its officers with respect to the particular allegations that are being made?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, we are not worthy, we are not worthy, we are truly not worthy. I was approached during the NBA championship series by my colleague from Utah, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Cook made a friendly wager, that if the Chicago Bulls had won the championship, that he would indeed wear a Chicago Bulls hat for the remainder of a day. ``I have missed more than 9,000 shots in my career,'' a Bull once said; ``I've almost lost 300 games, 26 times I have been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed.'' Character, Mr. Speaker, character speaks for both the Utah Jazz and the Chicago Bulls, of whom we are both extremely proud. I want to express our condolences once again to Shannon Anderson and his family, and to all of the Utah Jazz that played with such character, with such determination, we look forward to beating the Utah Jazz for a sixth time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1515, the Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance Coverage Act of 1997.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1650, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Delaware, Chairman Castle, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Flake, the ranking member, for the opportunity to address this important piece of legislation commending and honoring the work of Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa has been referred to as a moral leader, a Nobel laureate who has also been regularly referred to as a living saint among us. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] for providing me with the opportunity to cosponsor this worthy endeavor. When the gentleman initially approached me about the legislation, there was no equivocation whatsoever about my willingness to support and work on this side of the aisle to seek Democratic cosponsors of such a worthy piece of legislation. I think that the thoughtfulness of the gentleman from Nebraska on this particular piece of legislation is certainly an example of the kind of spirit that he has brought to this Congress, and it is indeed an honor to have the privilege of being a cosponsor with the gentleman on this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, with this Congressional Gold Medal we honor Mother Teresa of Calcutta upon her retirement as superior general of the Missionaries of Charity, the order she founded in 1947 to care for the dying and destitute of Calcutta, India. This moral and spiritual leader, known to the world as the ``Saint of the Gutters'' for her lifelong work caring for the third world's poorest of the poor, continues her struggle for humanity despite her own physical frailty. After suffering from malaria, from pneumonia, a heart attack, and after undergoing three heart surgeries just last year, the 86-year-old Mother Teresa has announced that she hopes that she is able to set up a base in China as her next project. Imagine that, 86, after having suffered from malaria, from pneumonia, a heart attack and three different surgeries, Mother Teresa keeps on giving and she never ceases to keep on giving. The Albanian-born Mother Teresa, who bravely combats her physical weakness, lacks no internal moral strength or outward vision. She is motivated by the depth of her faith and spirituality. Through her direct humanitarian acts, carried out by the Missionaries of Charity, she has transformed millions of lives one by one in the order's AIDS hospices, soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, clinics, schools, and homes for the lepers, the sick, and the terminally ill in 25 nations across this world. The sisters of her order literally go out into the streets and physically lift the starving terminally ill, drawing them into these homes to provide them with shelter and medicine free of charge. Most importantly, the sisters offer the least of these, our world's most vulnerable, who have so tragically been cast aside by society, the dignity and the respect of which all human beings are deserving. It is this spirit, the spirit of Mother Teresa, that I believe was probably best engendered in recent times in our Nation by the volunteer summit that took place in Philadelphia, where we saw Americans attempting to give back beyond themselves, beyond their class, beyond their race, and even beyond their own value system, to give of themselves, and no other person in our world for such a time as this has provided that as the gentlewoman from Calcutta. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can all learn and embrace her example. She is motivated by her faith to do good. She feeds the poor because they are hungry; she houses the homeless because they lack shelter; she treats the sick because they are ill. Her love and her care is not conditional. Her service to humanity is based upon her deep seated belief that we are all members of one human family. She treats people of all races and ethnicities, of all social stratum, equally, regardless of their relative wealth or poverty. In essence, this is what her deep sense of spirituality and religion compel her to do. Her righteous and selfless example is one from which we can all find inspiration and take guidance and direction. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor today to sponsor this bill to bestow the Congressional Medal of Honor to Mother Teresa when she graces us with her presence on June 5. I thank my colleagues for the overwhelming support for this tribute to a truly remarkable member of the world community.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding who I have enjoyed participating with on this debate over the course of the last 3 weeks. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that there is a distinction that should be drawn between our voluntarism because it is innovating from our own will or self-reliance, without coercion and threatening one's eviction, without compensation in exchange for what we are terming a volunteer effort. There is a distinction that should be drawn between mandatory voluntarism and one that is not mandatory.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, [Mr. Lazio], who I genuinely believe has made sincere efforts to reform public housing in this country. I also want to congratulate our ranking member [Mr. Kennedy] for his sincere efforts to reform public housing in this Nation, as well. Mr. Chairman, our position, however, it occurs to me, is to determine who is sincerely right and who is sincerely wrong. How do we determine, Mr. Chairman, who is right and who is wrong? There is only one standard for which we should implore when we vote on H.R. 2, to determine who is right and who is wrong, and that is the ``do unto others as we would have them do unto us'' standard. Mr. Chairman, just no Member of Congress, all of us who receive 100 percent of our paychecks from the public, is being asked to give 8 hours of our time per month in exchange for the very real public benefit that we receive; just not one of us who receives a mortgage deduction or any Federal benefit, including mining rights, including farm subsidies or corporate welfare. We tried yesterday in committee to attach to the Import-Export Bank legislation an 8-hour mandatory community service, since it is corporate welfare for corporations doing risky business in other parts of our country. Just no one. We have tried to attach it to other forms of corporate welfare, and yet the majority consistently rejects adding 8 hours of community service in exchange for their Federal benefit to any particular piece of legislation that comes before this Congress. Defense appropriations, it will be coming up shortly, and at no point in time will we ever mandate of them voluntarism. Only in this bill for the first time, to the best of my knowledge, since 1865, only in this bill for the first time since 1865 do we treat a different set of Americans any different than we have ever treated another group of Americans. Mr. Chairman, vote for the Kennedy substitute and against this draconian bill.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?