Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield further, one of our colleagues a little while ago on the other side of the aisle indicated that a part of the welfare initiative was to move tax consumers off of the welfare rolls and make them productive. Who can argue with that? We want to move people who consume taxes off of the welfare rolls. But the only way to move them from our perspective off of the welfare rolls is to take a tax consumer and make a revenue generator out of them. Someone who generates revenue obviously has a job. When people have jobs, they pay taxes. When taxes are paid, deficits go down, interest rates go down, and people who pay taxes also pay to local governments, they pay to State governments and they also pay the Federal Government. That is how we can rebuild the infrastructure of these schools. But there is a presupposition there that we have a plan to put people to work, to move them from welfare to work. That is clearly the next phase that we find ourselves in. I would like to just use two examples for some of our colleagues who may be listening in their offices. Let us take the town of Ruraltown, USA. A typical problem. The town of Ruraltown has three schools in need of major renovations to improve air quality ventilation and the roofs. Typical cost to repair of these schools is expected to be about $5 million. Some of the typical obstacles in Ruraltown. Ruraltown faces difficult challenges in renovating its schooling. Its tax base is too small to pay for the necessary renovations, and bond financing is obviously too expensive. Here is the impact of the President's proposal on this school construction initiative. It reduces local cost of school construction. The President's proposal would cut the interest rate paid by Ruraltown in half. This would save the town more than $1.7 million in interest cost over the life of the $5 million bond. This is equivalent to saving $1.2 million immediately, a savings of roughly 23 percent off the face value. Let us look at Metropolis. I represent the city of Chicago and I also represent Ruraltown. In the city of Metropolis, Chicago, IL, typical problems. Like cities across the Nation, Metropolis has a large school construction and renovation need. Two of its schools need major renovations, including plumbing and new roofs, and an additional elementary school is needed to accommodate a rapidly growing school age population. Here are the typical costs. The repairs and two new school buildings are expected to be about $10 million, $2 million each for the major renovations of the two existing facilities, and about $6 million for the new elementary school. The typical obstacles: Despite the clear need for the repairs and the two new schools, the school board has been reluctant to propose issuing a bond when it could be rejected as too costly. As a result, only emergency repairs funded out of an operations account have been undertaken. Here is the impact of the President's school construction initiative. It reduces the local cost of school construction. The President's proposal would cut interest payments in half, saving Metropolis $5 million in interest costs over the life of the $10 million bond. This is equivalent to saving about $2.9 million immediately, a savings of about 29 percent off of the face value. I think this is a good initiative that should enjoy broad bipartisan support.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield, six schools in Washington, DC, did not open for the very same reason that the gentleman is speaking of.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield, it would be cruel and unusual punishment. For students to be in school without adequate heat in the wintertime or air conditioning in the summertime, I think it is cruel and unusual punishment. Would the gentleman agree?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for his outstanding work in this area and also join him as well as the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas in congratulating the senior Senator from the State of Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, for her outstanding work in this area. Why do we have this problem? We have this problem in part because of irresponsible supply side tax policies of the seventies and the eighties that really put our Nation and our Government into a deep hole. The past 15 years we have seen incomes stagnate for most Americans, particularly middle-class Americans, while their Federal taxes have unfortunately risen. But the reality is that the only way we are going to be able to repair our Nation's schools and put our children back on track is not to make any more proposals, any more voodoo tax proposals. These buildings, this infrastructure that needs to be fixed is going to cost and we are going to have to pay for it. We either pay for it in the form of rebuilding the infrastructure of our schools, putting legible and good books in the hands of our young people. Some students are reading books where Nixon is still the President. That is no longer obviously the case. So I want to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for this opportunity, thank Sheila Jackson- Lee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, for joining us and thank the Speaker for his indulgence.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this unconstitutional bill being proposed by the previous speaker, the chairman of the Human Rights Caucus. Mr. Chairman, please tell me what this bill is about? I believe that this bill is about denying and restricting freedom of speech as well as the right to vote. This bill violates the first amendment and the spirit of the Voting Rights Act which was written to overcome discrimination. In this body, we vote to protect free speech for just about everyone and everything: It's OK to have pornography on the Internet; it's not OK for colleges to censor student newspapers; it's OK for newspapers to lie about us. We guarantee rappers the right to free speech, but we do not want to guarantee the right to free speech in another language. Mr. Chairman, one-half of the world's population is Asian. One-fourth of the world is Chinese. One-fourth is African, and one-eighth is Nigerian. Americans make up only 4 percent to 6 percent of the world's population. Until today, Congress has acted to expand trade with our neighbors to the south, east, north, and west. Now, we are turning our backs on 96 percent of the world; most of which is nonwhite, nonchristian, didn't have anything to do with the Mayflower, and has no paranoia about the English language losing its place in the world. Mr. Chairman, segregationists have always fought against equal rights. Even the record of this Congress shows how difficult it has been to expand basic rights: A member of the other body, who will be running for reelection at the age of one hundred, set a record for the longest filibuster in history when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964--every Member of this body must recognize that the civil rights act outlawed poll taxes which prevented poor Americans from voting because they could not afford the tax needed to register. So far this Congress is known for similar egregious actions, a senior Member of this body honored a former Member of the House who was a champion of segregation, the late Howard Smith of Virginia. today, unless this bill is defeated, we will be denying people the opportunity to understand the ballots before them. It causes me no little confusion, Mr. Chairman, that the sponsor of the bill repealing bilingual ballots is the chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. I ask this body that when we look at countries around the world which have persecuted their minorities, when we tell the Serbs to respect the rights of ethnic Albanians, how foolish is it that we are attempting to pass legislation such as this? Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body should stand for liberty, equal protection, and free speech. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. This bill will represent the first time that Congress has narrowed the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this deadly and Draconian piece of garbage which will do nothing to reform the conditions of poverty and unemployment suffered by our Nation's most vulnerable. As I listen to the debate on the floor of this body today, I felt compelled to make clear to the American people exactly what this bill will do to our Nation's families and our Nation's future. Despite the deceptive rhetoric that we have heard on the floor today, let us be clear--at its core, this bill unravels a 60-year guarantee of a basic human safety net for our Nation's poorest and most vulnerable children and their families. The President and many Members of the 104th Congress have decided to cut welfare as they know it--to children, immigrants and the poorest Americans--but they have left intact welfare as we know it--welfare to America's largest corporations. We cannot and must not balance the budget on the backs of the least of these. Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members on this floor urge support of this deadly measure, cloaking its defense in terms like ``This is for the good of the poor.'' How can this be anything but bad for the poor, when we know that in my Home State of Illinois alone, 55,800 children will be pushed below the poverty line as a result of this bill, and 1.3 million children will be similarly impacted nationwide. Please know, Mr. Speaker, that I will not join demopublicans and republicrats in this mean-spirited attack. you can rest assured that I will work to continue to provide equal protection under the law for our Nation's poor, our disabled, our immigrants and our children. Posturing tough on welfare mothers is viewed as good politics at least by a press corps that admires cynicism. But ending welfare as I know it is a good idea if done well. So before you push more poor kids and their mothers out on the streets let's apply ``Two Years and You're Off'' to dependent corporations and find a real jobs program for all Americans. Perhaps conservative Republicans and Democrats and posturing Presidents should begin to beat up on the welfare king for a change.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address what I fear to be the serious constitutional implications implicit in H.R. 3396, ``Defense of Marriage Act.'' Specifically, I am concerned that this bill poses serious constitutional questions on two grounds: First, the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, and second, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Upon hearing proponents of this bill argue that this bill does not violate the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, and after studying the analysis of constitutional experts, and in particular, Prof. Chai Feldblum of the Georgetown University Law Center, I feel compelled to express my serious concerns on this point. implications for the full faith and credit clause While the Supreme Court has not specifically applied the full faith and credit clause to the status of marriage, we do know that there is absolutely no legal precedent for Congress to invite some States to ignore the official acts of others. Mr. Chairman, section 2 of this bill adds a section to the Federal full faith and credit statute, which is no doubt an unconstitutional attempt to do just this. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, article IV, clause 1, provides, and I quote: Sentence One: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. Sentence Two: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. In other words, each State must give ``full faith and credit'' to other State laws, and must fully recognize the acts and proceedings of other States. For example, in the case of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 295 (1942), the Supreme Court interpreted the clause as serving the purpose of ``alter[ing] the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore the obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation.'' Never once has Congress implemented laws allowing States not to recognize certain ``Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings'' of another State. In fact, Congress has heightened each State's recognition responsibilities under the clause by enacting the following pieces of legislation: First, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1990 requires States to enforce, not ignore, other States' child custody determinations; Second, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders of 1994 requires that other States enforce, not ignore, child support determinations of other States; and Third, the Safe Homes of Women Act of 1994 requires that States recognize, not ignore, the protective orders of other States to protect victims of domestic violence. Thus, Congress has only passed legislation strengthening, not weakening, requirements on States to recognize the ``Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings'' of another. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear why many constitutional scholars have concluded that Congress would go beyond the scope of its legislative powers under the Constitution in passing H.R. 3396. It is noteworthy that during the subcommittee consideration of this bill, Representative Sensenbrenner stated that Utah's admission to the Union was delayed for several years because of ``the fear of the Congress over a hundred years ago was that polygamous marriages that were polemized in Utah would have to be recognized in the other States.'' This statement suggests that Congress contemplated over one hundred years ago that the drafters of the Constitution intended that all States, not only those which choose to, must give ``full faith and credit'' to the ``Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings'' of all other States, including the recognition of out-of-State marriage, and interpreted that requirement to its most literal meaning. Proponents of this bill argue that allowing States to not recognize the public acts of another is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power under sentence two of the clause. Mr. Chairman, How can this be if this bill directly contravenes sentence one's mandate that every State is required to recognize the official public acts and judicial proceedings of other States? If we are to follow the flawed logic of this argument, it would follow that sentence two of the clause must be read to say that States must recognize the official acts of other States except when Congress passes a law that says they don't have to. Mr. Chairman, this not only flies in the face of every States rights argument I have heard from the majority since I began serving in this body, but it also has the unconstitutional effect of amending the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution without actually going through the very cumbersome and challenging process of amending the Constitution through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by the States. implications for the equal protection clause Additionally, H.R. 3396 could engender equal protection challenges because the law may not survive the rational basis test adopted by the Supreme Court with respect to legislation establishing certain types of classifications. H.R. 3396 would allow a State not to recognize same- sex marriages legalized in other States if it so chooses. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether there is rational connection between this law and the intended governmental purpose it seeks to further. In the case of Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P. 2d 44 (Haw. 1993) the Hawaii State Supreme Court rejected the arguments made to deny the right of two individuals of the same sex to marry on the basis that Hawaii's State Constitution considers classifications on the basis of sex to be suspect in nature and subject to strict scrutiny analysis. However, for purposes of Federal constitutional challenge, legal experts have come to the conclusion that the rational basis test would probably be used to consider the constitutionality of the H.R. 3396. The authors content that H.R. 3396 is necessary for the preservation of the institution of marriage, hence the title of the bill. However, would H.R. 3396 in fact allow the United States to further its interest in the preservation of the institution of marriage? Or put differently, I have not yet heard of any empirical data which may even mildly suggest the rational and logical connection between H.R. 3396 and its intended governmental purpose. Considering that one in two marriages result in divorce in the U.S., and that many children of heterosexual marriages are suffering from family-unit-debacle, it is safe to conclude that H.R. 3396 is by far not the most appropriate form of legislation with respect to achieving the perceived governmental purpose of ``protect[ing] the institution of marriage'' by defining a marriage only as ``a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'' It thus follows that there does not seem to be a rational basis between H.R. 3396 and the intended governmental purpose. Moreover, the Supreme Court this term in the case of Romer v. Evans 64 U.S.L.W. 4353 (1996) rejected amendment No. 2 of the Colorado State Constitution on the grounds that there was no rational basis between amendment No. 2's repudiation of special protection for homosexuals and the State's articulated governmental purpose. Approximately 17 areas of federally enacted legislation and programs would be affected if this bill were to become law, specifically banking; bankruptcy; civil service; consumer credit; copyright; education' Federal lands and resources; housing; immigration; judiciary; labor; military; social security; taxation; veterans; the Soldiers' and Civil Relief Act; and, welfare. In effect, this bill would deny gay men and women hospital visitation rights, health coverage, and other forms of insurance, inheritance and taxation rights, government benefits for spouses, immigration rights for spouses, and other rights. Just as the States should not interfere in any way with religious ceremonies, religious groups may not govern who receives a civil marriage license. This would in fact pose serious problems for the fundamental principle of the separation of church and state implicitly established in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution; now, I am being asked to place my hand on the Constitution and uphold the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and other religious doctrine. The U.S. Constitution must remain the supreme law of the land. This document protects the rights of all to believe and worship as they choose. I swore to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, to protect minorities and minority viewpoints from the tyranny of the majority, to protect African-Americans from racism, Jews from anti-Semitism, Arabs from anti-Arabism, women from sexism, and gays and lesbians from homophobia and discrimination. With this vote, I am sending a message to all coalitions that those who have sworn to protect the Constitution will do just that. We will protect their rights. If defense of marriage meant a job in every household and adequate education for all children; if defense of marriage meant a single- family home for all Americans; if defense of marriage meant universal health care for all Americans, then we would be truly addressing the moral crisis confronting the institution of marriage. We know, however, that the Defense of Marriage Act compels this Congress to exceed the boundaries of its constitutional authority. This bill offends the Constitution, by violating both the full faith and credit and equal protection clauses of this sacred document. Whether churches choose to perform ceremonies is within the domain of the churches to decide. Under the Constitution, our national government must uphold the wall between church and state. We know that we cannot dictate the churches' activities. It is also clear that the church cannot instruct the government to restrict the rights of the church, their followers, or their faith; nor can the church call upon Congress to contravene or undermine the Constitution. Both the Bible and the Constitution have a role, but they are different roles. The Bible did not free African-Americans, it saved African-Americans and it saved me. The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment did not save me, but it did outlaw slavery. I am saved today because of the Bible, but I am in Congress today because of the 14th amendment and the Constitution as amended. Mr. Chairman, in light of the foregoing, I caution my colleagues to look closely at these issues before supporting this bill.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me say that I think the gentleman from Louisiana's words were most appropriate and fitting to close this special order. [National Rainbow Coalition, June 13, 1996] ``Burning Churches, Burning Opportunity'' Jackson Attacks Supreme Court Decision Washington, D.C.--The Reverend Jesse L. Jackson attacked today's Supreme Court decision which struck down majority- minority districts in North Carolina and Texas. ``At night, the enemies of civil rights strike in white sheets, burning churches,'' Jackson said. ``By day, they strike in black robes, burning opportunities.'' ``1996 is looking more like 1896 every day,'' Jackson continued. ``Churches are burned, all across the South. The gains of the Second Reconstruction won by Dr. King are being rolled back, just like Jim Crow rolled back the gains of the First Reconstruction. The Supreme Court in 1896 ruled on Plessy vs. Ferguson, with its idea of `separate but equal.' The Supreme Court now puts out ruling after ruling under the pretense that after four centuries of slavery and apartheid, that a white population which makes up 85% of the electorate, and an African American electorate which makes up only about 10%, operate on an equal playing field.'' Jackson noted with approval the words of Justice Stevens, who wrote: ``A majority's attempt to enable the minority to participate more effectively in the process of democratic government should not be viewed with the same hostility that is appropriate for oppressive and exclusionary abuses of political powers.'' Jackson also commented on those who voted in the majority: ``On the side of those voting to end the Second Reconstruction, we find Chief Justice Rehnquist, who first came to public notice as he attempted to intimidate minority voters from going to the polls. ``Second, we find Sandra Day O'Conner, an affirmative action justice, who is only on the court because the civil rights movement and the women's movement forced America to widen the pool of those `qualified' to serve in our nation's highest positions--despite that, she votes to end the most effective electoral remedy we have yet found to diversify the make-up of our legislatures. ``And third, of course, we find Justice Clarence Thomas, who is on the Supreme Court only because he is Black--no white justice with his limited legal experience would ever have been considered for that position--and yet he turns his back on the same movement and remedies that allowed him to rise. ``Clarence Thomas is a memorial to George Bush's racial cynicism, and he has imposed upon us blow after blow more devastating than anything George Wallace was able to deliver. Jackson concluded: ``It is humiliating and painful to watch a prime beneficiary of Martin's movement stick the dagger in the heart of Dr. King's dream. ``Districts have historically been drawn based on incumbency, political parties, geographical boundaries, and industry. Racial factors were added after judges found, years after Selma, proof of patterns of racial discrimination. Therefore, they ordered the redrawing of boundaries for `racial inclusion,' rather than `racial exclusion.' These judges chose to be `race-affirmative,' to offset centuries of `race-negativity.' ``The result after the 1992 elections was the most representative U.S. Congress, and the most representative state legislatures, in the history of this nation. This is the context in which the Supreme Court today has acted to wound Dr. King's dream. ``America is moving towards the end of this century with the same tragic music with which Plessy v. Ferguson ended the last century. And the saddest notes of all are being played by one of the civil rights movement's prime beneficiaries-- Clarence Thomas.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I want to take this opportunity to thank my distinguished friend from Louisiana, the distinguished gentleman, Cleo Fields; and you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us the privilege and this opportunity to address the House during this special order. Anyone who might have misunderstood what happened in the 1994 elections should have clearly been set straight on the 23rd of January 1995. That day, in the ornate hearing room in the House Committee on Rules, the victorious Republicans, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, removed a portrait of former Representative Claude Pepper of Florida, a renowned white, liberal Democrat, and certainly that was understandable because the Republicans certainly have the right to change pictures in various committee rooms to reflect their new majority. But what tickled me about this was that the new Republican committee chairman, Mr. Solomon of New York, distinguished colleague of ours from New York, had ordered the Pepper portrait to be replaced by another Democrat, the late Howard Smith of Virginia, a last-ditch segregationist in many of his years as Committee on Rules chairman, one of the most powerful opponents of civil rights legislation of the sixties. And so I am here today to really join my colleague from Louisiana, my colleague from California, my colleague from Texas, and my colleague from South Carolina really to say that we are sick and tired as well of being sick and tired, sick and tired of having our churches burned at night, sick and tired of having our districts burned during the daytime, and what is left? Without political representation here in this institution to protect our rights in the society beyond Washington, with this whole motion and movement towards States rights, we are looking at the same kind of climate that we witnessed during the Tilden-Hayes Compromise of 1877. I spoke not long ago at a high school to some students who at the end of my presentation stood up and asked the question, they said, ``Representative Jackson, what's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?'' And I tried to say Democrats fight for jobs, they fight for opportunity, they make room for more people, and Republicans tend to be pro-business. But one of the young people said, ``But wait a minute. I've heard Democrats on the floor argue on both sides of that issue.'' And so in 1877 what we really had was two parties with one assumption. Demopublicans, they called them, and Republicrats; they really conspired. We call it States rights, we call it more access to resources in our communities by the States, and they began shifting more resources to the States, and by 1896 they had stacked the Supreme Court kind of, if you will, a Clarence Thomas court, a kind of Scalia court, and then we got Plessy versus Ferguson. We had 22 African- Americans in the U.S. House of Representatives between 1863 and 1896, and after they stacked the Supreme Court, black robes, not white sheets who burn churches, but black robes who burn districts by day; by 1901 there were zero blacks in this institution, and I believe it was our late colleague from Illinois, Mr. DuPriest, who stood in this well and gave a speech: We will rise again like the phoenix, we will be back. And then it is not until the 1954 Brown versus the Board of Education decision that allowed the principle of equal protection under the law to be extended to the States in the form of a 1964 Civil Rights Act, a 1965 Voting Rights Act, and after three different reapportionments, the 1970 census, the 1980 census, the 1990 census. African-Americans in this body are now finally achieving comparable numbers to those numbers that they had at the turn of the century. And now we are looking at Supreme Court decisions once again that are consistent with Plessy versus Ferguson, and it is really unfortunate in 1996 that Mr. Thomas is leading the voting rights cabal. I also rise this evening to stand with my colleagues and to join the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] and the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Watts, in support of their resolution to condemn not only these church burnings, but also to demand that our Federal Government put the kind of resources behind this investigation that is necessary. Mr. Deval Patrick, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, along with the Attorney General of the United States, Miss Janet Reno, have indicated to us on more than one occasion that this is the largest civil rights investigation of its kind, and we are just so grateful to have Representatives in this body who can fight and encourage the Justice Department to put those kind of resources behind these kinds of acts of violence, and it is only because we are here that we can really fight for this right. And so I would hope, and I have indicated this on another occasion as I prepared to yield time to the gentlewoman from Texas, that in 1996 we have an opportunity in this House, knowing that race and churches are being burned and opportunities are being burned, we have an opportunity in this House not to be demagogic in 1996. There is no need for us to vote on affirmative action in this House in this climate; it only means that more churches will burn. We should put it in the 105th Congress. There are other racially sensitive issues in this political climate that should not be considered in this political climate, and I would urge those in the majority to consider the climate and the times that we are living in and move these votes into the next Congress and give us the opportunity and the Nation the opportunity to have an election that will be free of race and race insensitivity. And with that, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas. She had a very tough and a very long day. She is one of the most outspoken Members in the House of Representatives. We can count on her to fight for women's rights, we can count on her to fight for the rights of locked-out and disenfranchised people in our country, and it is just unfortunate that a woman of her calibre and her stature who has represented not only African-Americans--people see us, they see African-American, but my district is 65 percent African-American, 35 percent white and Latinos and others live in my district. I am not just a black Representative or a black Congressman. I represent probably one of the most diverse districts in this country. I do not know an African-American in here who represents 99 percent African-Americans. Our districts are diverse, and so she represents her district and has served this institution with great honor, and today the Supreme Court of the United States rules against the calibre and the quality of leadership that she represents. With that, I now yield time to the distinguished lady from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for his very kind and very gentle remarks. I would certainly hope those of us in this body, really on both sides of the aisle and certainly those of us who occupy the Supreme Court of the United States and the White House, that we would be particularly sensitive that it is but by the grace of God that the churches that have been burnt, that there have not been full congregations or any congregations in those churches at those times. But let us also be cognizant of the role that we play with our debates on the floor of this House, with the way in which we conduct ourselves in our Democrat versus Republican politics back home, with the implementation of strategies that have not brought out the very best in people but have, indeed, exacerbated fears and brought out the very worst in people. I certainly want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for the way in which he has conducted himself publicly and the role he has tried to play it bringing African-Americans, white Americans, Asian Americans, native Americans and all of the different of Americans under one big tent called America. With that, Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, can we indeed separate church-burnings from the blowing up of a Federal building in Oklahoma, anti-Federal Government; the Government is too large, the Government is the source of our problem? Can we indeed separate church-burnings from the Freemen's movement and militias on the rise across our Nation, those who are declaring that their individual plots of land are not part of the United States? I am suggesting that there is a cultural conspiracy that is much broader than just the churches. We are living in a very dangerous climate where we are not only burning churches but we are also burning opportunity, and while we are burning opportunities not only for African-Americans and Latino-Americans, we are also burning opportunities in large numbers for poor white Americans, and many of those poor white Americans, along with African-Americans, Latinos, and others, are indeed reacting to this climate. One of the things we must do is rise above it. They take their cues from us. If they see us on this floor race-baiting and using cold words and cold language to accomplish short-term political ends, if they see us doing it at the national Presidential level, if they see us doing it in the U.S. Senate, the by-product is certainly intolerance that takes place within our communities, which no freestanding and no uplifting human being should absolutely tolerate.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for allowing me the opportunity to participate this evening in this special order. I certainly want to join my colleagues along with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] from the other side of the aisle, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], members of the Congressional Black Caucus, members of the progressive caucus in this Congress, in condemning those who are burning churches, defacing synagogues in our Nation, and certainly congratulate those who are seeking to bring the perpetrators to justice. Attorney General Janet Reno has been working diligently along with Deval Patrick, along with the members of the FBI and the ATF, to bring these perpetrators to justice. It is my understanding, after having talked with Mr. Patrick, that this is one of the largest civil rights investigations that has ever taken place in our Nation's history. I am hoping that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, after I read a brief history of church burnings in our Nation, put them in some particular context, will certainly join me in a colloquy about church burnings and what it is that we can do to bring an end to this climate. There are those who have said in the civil rights community that this is not only an indication of the climate and the times that we find ourselves in, but that there is indeed a conspiracy, if not a conspiracy of individuals who have met on this subject, certainly a conspiracy of culture. If there can be said to be a bright side about these incidents, it is that blacks and whites, Christians, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics, the Rainbow Coalition and the Christian Coalition have united against these acts and they have come together calling for more Federal resources to go into the investigative efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice. Mr. Speaker, some in the civil rights community have referred to this form of church-burning as cultural conspiracy, a cultural conspiracy that tolerates, if you will, a kind of racism. The fires have drawn the attention of rights' groups because of the historical legacy of black churches being repeatedly burned during the 1950's and the 1960's. While others have indicated that while those in white sheets have historically been burning churches, we are now living in a climate where those in blue suits are legislating against the civil rights of many Americans, and also those in black robes are indeed passing down judicial decrees that are severely restricting the principles of equal protection under the law. When we look at what has taken place in this Nation since 1990, 57 houses of worship have been destroyed as a result of fire and vandalism in 15 States. Only 13 cases have been successfully prosecuted and closed. A total of 30 incidents have been reported thus far in 1996 alone. Since 1986, there have been reports of suspicious fires almost ever year. Most blazes occurred in rural, isolated areas where water had to be transported to the site by volunteer companies. In eight of the cases, where arrests have been made, perpetrators have been white. One was even a fireman. Seventeen fires were set during black history month or other important civil rights anniversaries, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination; the march across the Edmond Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL in the month of March; or near the time the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday is celebrated. The States that have been hardest hit are Tennessee with eight churches, Louisiana with five churches, Alabama with five churches, and in Louisiana, four of the five churches were torched on February 1, 1996, in East Baton Rouge Parish. I believe the gentleman from Louisiana represents this parish. The interesting thing about February 1, 1996 is that it is the anniversary of the Greensboro sit-in's, where students from North Carolina A&T State University--my alma mater in 1960--fought for public accommodations. Of the Louisiana churches--Cyprus Grove Baptist Church, St. Paul's Free Baptist Church, Sweet Home Baptist Church, Thomas Chapel Benevolent society--all four were located within a 6-mile radius of each other. The St. Charles Baptist Church, the fifth church, was burned on April 11, 1996 in Paincourtville, Louisiana and citizens, again, who are concerned should know that that number is 888-ATF-FIRE. If there is any information that you can provide and that Members of Congress can provide through their networks to alert the proper authorities about these church burnings, they certainly should do that. I want to put this in a particular historical context, which I think is certainly appropriate for these times. I wanted to do a little research before commenting further on the climate within which churches have historically burned in this Nation. Before I go any further, I certainly want to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Mrs. Eva Clayton, for the legislation that she is sponsoring, along with other Members of Congress who are sponsoring legislation to challenge perpetrators of church-burnings and synagogue defacings in our Nation. I think what is probably most instrumental when we look at church- burnings in our Nation is that while we are living in a climate and in an environment where there are those who would say that race is still not a factor in American life, while we are hearing more decrees from the court that are certainly suggesting that the court should be going in a direction of color-blindness. There is one thing that is clear about American history, and that is that race is really not a side issue. It is not an addendum to American history. It is central to the entire history of our Nation from a constitutional perspective: three-fifths human voting status, article 1, section 2 of the constitution; the ``such persons'' clause, article 1, section 9; the persons held to service or labor clause, article 4, section 2, paragraph 3; article 5, prohibiting any amendment of the slave trade and capitalization tax clauses before the year 1808. It was William Lloyd Garrison and his liberator who condemned the Constitution at that time as a covenant with death and in agreement with hell. It is only because of constitutional amendments, amendments that ended slavery, that guaranteed the right to vote, that subsequently established the principles of equal protection under the law for all Americans, that the Constitution has indeed endured. Look at our Nation's Capitol. Even the location of our Nation's Capital, it was determined, should be the by-product of a compromise made at the time the Congress was in Philadelphia. The Congress of the United States is presently located between Maryland and Virginia, the compromise between a free State, Maryland, and that of slave State, Virginia. Look at the number of States that were entered into the Union on the issue of race. Slave and free States were admitted together to keep balance in this institution between those who were interested in abolishing the institution of slavery and those who wanted to keep it. I raise these particular concerns because when we look at the Tilden- Hayes Compromise of 1877, when a Democratic President was subsequently elected, and by and large a conservative court ran the Supreme Court of the United States, there was an assumption about the progress that many minorities in our Nation began making after 1863. Twenty-two African- Americans served in this institution as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. Beyond that, 131 historically black colleagues were also founded. But once the Tilden-Hayes compromise took place, when Democrats and Republicans, two parties with one assumption at that time--to stop the progress that African-Americans and other minorities were making in our Nation so quickly--they withdrew troops from the South that is, they withdrew Federal protection from the South, and as a result, the Klan, the Ku Klux Klan, those Knights of the Ku Klux Klan became more evident. Beyond that, churches began to burn at unparalleled rates. So in 1996, when we look at the parallels between what took place in 1896 with Plessy versus Ferguson and decisions that are coming out of our Court in 1996, we are certainly looking at a climate where we are withdrawing some of the principles that indeed fought historically against these acts, acts against church burning, acts against racial hatred in the South. So I would certainly put in that context a challenge to both Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle as we try and find creative solutions to resolving this particular crisis. We must, when they talk about cultural conspiracy, and I have heard several civil rights leaders refer to this as a cultural conspiracy. What do they mean when they say cultural conspiracy? I am the gentleman from the south side of Chicago. I am a big Chicago Bulls fan. Everyone in the Congress certainly knows that. I do believe that Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippin of the Chicago Bulls will win a championship and bring it home to Chicago. When Michael Jordan shoots a 3-point shot, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], he manages to shoot that shot from the 3- point line, and wherever he is, Jesse, Junior, in Chicago jumps up excited because Michael Jordan just made a basket. But guess what? Michael Jordan fans in Los Angeles also jump up and shout. Michael Jordan fans in Dallas and Michael Jordan fans in Florida, Michael Jordan fans all across our country and indeed Michael Jordan fans around our world, they jump up, a kind of conspiracy, if you will, for Michael Jordan, because he represents the common denominator through which all of us relate, many of us relate to the Chicago Bulls. When we talk about cultural conspiracies with respect to church burnings, when politicians fan race hatred, fan the fears of racial animosity within our Nation at the top, they create a kind of cultural conspiracy. In 1964, in reaction to Brown versus The Board of Education, Goldwater ran his campaign talking about States' rights. It was a way of saying that States had a way under the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States. In 1968, in response to the 1967 and 1968 riots, Nixon ran his campaign on law and order. In 1972 Wallace ran his campaign in reaction to integration on busing. In 1976, even Carter, a Democrat, ran his campaign and announced his candidacy from Georgia, gave a speech in Indiana, talking about ethnic purity; a Democrat. In 1980 Reagan talked about welfare queens, and in 1988 it was Bush who used Willy Horton, and even our own President, in 1992, who used Sister Soljah in his bid to become the President of the United States. In 1996 what are the issues that are quickly approaching the election season? Affirmative action, a big issue in California, the CCRI, California Civil Rights Initiative; welfare reform. We have taken care of many of the substantive issues, but what is left are those issues that exacerbate those racial fears and racial tension. My appeal in this climate to both parties to help avert this whole notion of a cultural conspiracy would be that we rise above racial politics in 1996 and do what is in the best interests of the American people.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me say if there is any bright side to this very unfortunate series of events that have been taking place in our Nation, it is that African-Americans and Jewish-Americans and I have seen Catholic Americans along with Protestant Americans come together, the Rainbow Coalition coming together philosophically with the Christian Coalition to condemn these acts. This is something that historically I would think, considering the partisan nature of politics in our country, would not necessarily be the case, but they have moved beyond their partisan differences, because any group of individual who would attack a church is certainly beneath the dignity of what we refer to and call ourselves Americans. And so those who are doing it should stop and those who have information about those who are doing it should call 888-ATF-FIRE and certainly call the ATF and let them know that they have some information about these unfortunate turn of events in our country. I thought it was important to put these church burnings in a historical context, because all too often the history of racism and sexism and classism and church burnings and climate setting in our Nation and the role that we play as elected officials in fanning those fires, that is, helping those fires get worse. We are not just burning churches, we are also burning opportunity in our Nation. Burning opportunity forces reaction in our Nation in terms of those who are getting an advantage through affirmative action, through other programs that were designed to help the poor regardless of their race, sex, color or class, in this particular climate we see that there is an emergence, if you will, of more church burnings and this kind of racial hatred. I want to go back just quickly to affirmative action because we are talking about not just burning churches but burning opportunity in our Nation. To hire someone because they are unqualified is absolutely illegal. That is illegal in our Nation. Affirmative action does not mandate that one hire someone because they are unqualified. I think the analogy that the gentleman from Louisiana raises about an airline pilot is certainly correct. You do not hire an African American to fly a plane or hire a woman or a Latin or an Asian American to fly a plane simply because of their color. Who would want to fly in a plane in this country if you hired someone who did not know how to fly a plane? That is ridiculous. But it does mean that if African Americans and if women historically have not flown planes in our Nation, have not been given an equal opportunity of flying a plane, then the airline industries across our Nation must go out of their way and do something that they have historically not done, go out of their way to find qualified African-American men from Tuskegee, Tuskegee pilots, find qualified women, black, white, brown, Asian, who can fly planes and give them an opportunity. I cannot help but remember and think about the significance of the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's most recent trip to Bosnia- Herzegovina, the former war-torn Yugoslavia. Ron Brown was a big supporter of affirmative action. I certainly hope that his support of affirmative action and equal opportunity does not get lost in his legacy. But for Ron Brown's very unfortunate and untimely demise along with many of our mutual friends who were on that plane, the only thing we probably would have known about that trip from the media accounts was the fact that they were giving hamburgers to soldiers in the former Yugoslavia. But when the plane crashed, we also discovered something else. We found out who else was on the plane, business people, predominantly white businessmen, CEO's of major corporations across our country, who were going to Yugoslavia to rebuild the former war-torn republic, really to receive a grant from the Federal Government that we had provided in this institution for any U.S. company that wanted to go there and rebuild it. They were using a military plane, they were using military personnel, and the Secretary of Commerce was escorting those businesspeople, predominantly white, male-owned companies on a trip for opportunity. Why was Ron Brown such a big supporter of affirmative action? Because he wanted those business people on those trips that only he knew as Secretary of Commerce that he was really taking to come back to the United States and do business with African-Americans and women and Asians and Native Americans and those who for whatever reason could not be participants on those international trips. Ron Brown knew that the U.S. Government was providing opportunity for those business people in foreign markets and they also had some obligation as a matter of law, not as a matter of good will or good feeling or how we think about people but as a matter of law to come back to this Nation and do business with African-Americans and with women and with Asians who could not make that trip. Ron Brown was about expanding opportunity, and affirmative action was a factor in his program.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. One of the things I did when I ran for Congress in the Second Congressional District of Illinois is I indicated I would rather lose my race right rather than win it wrong, that I did not want to come to Congress at anyone else's expense. In the Second Congressional District I ran against some very formidable opponents, but one of the things I did not want to do was destroy their reputations or their character just so that Jesse Jr. could serve in this body. I knew I was young enough, had the energy enough to run every time until I won, with the ability to build the consensus that was necessary to provide the kind of hope for the people of my district. I say that to put it in any context. When we hear Presidential candidates who run for political office and on the one hand they equate the song ``We Shall Overcome'' with whistling ``Dixie,'' there is no difference, a Presidential candidate said, between ``We Shall Overcome'' and whistling ``Dixie,'' they are both freedom movements. Well, if whistling ``Dixie,'' protecting the Confederacy, is part of a freedom movement and ``We Shall Overcome'' can be equated, it certainly suggests that either we are all missing the boat or that something is taking place within our Nation that has not been healed even since the Civil War. So I would certainly challenge those Presidential candidates to keep the Presidential campaign focused on issues of substance to people as it affects their daily lives. The gentleman mentioned affirmative action. I heard some of our colleagues earlier on the other side of the aisle talking about affirmative action. He is right. In 1996 affirmative action has become a buzz word. But the reality is affirmative action is really an outgrowth of the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education decision. Affirmative action is a conservative remedy to offset historical action, historical negative action against groups of people in our society that have been historically denied. For example, I did a television show last weekend with one of the distinguished gentlemen from the other side of the aisle, and we talked about affirmative action. We talked about affirmative action as equal opportunity, that is, providing opportunity for those who have been historically locked out in our society, and I might add that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in our Nation have been white women, not African-Americans. While there are those in our country who would paint affirmative action as the program that has provided unusual, unfair advantage to African-Americans, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in the State of Illinois and in States around our Nation have been businesses owned by white women. But why is affirmative action so important? Yes, white women have been discriminated against, African-Americans have been discriminated against, and there is a legacy of ongoing discrimination that still takes place within our Nation. The example that I use so regularly across our country is this. When we look to find qualified basketball players to play at any Big 10 or Division I basketball school in our country, we go all over the country. We have boosters who write the coach and say, ``Coach, listen, there is a 7-foot-4 basketball player here in our local township who can play basketball. Why don't you give them an opportunity, give them a tryout, send them a letter or try and get them to sign a letter of intent?'' So we go all over the country, primarily because we have an institution in place called boosters to provide information for coaches, and that is why we find so many prominent African-Americans playing basketball in Division I schools. The problem is this: When it comes around to finding qualified African-Americans who can teach or qualified women who can teach, qualified African-American female, Latino and Asian-American administrators at these schools, suddenly the same aggressive recruitment mechanism that went into finding qualified ball players is not applied when it comes to finding qualified teachers. They always say, ``Well, we looked in the local pool, the local municipality and we couldn't find African-Americans or women or Latinos or Asian Americans who were qualified.'' What affirmative action simply suggests as it relates to that kind of opportunity is that those institutions must be as aggressive in trying to find qualified black Ph.D.'s and female Ph.D.'s and Latino Ph.D.'s just as they went and found qualified African-American ball players who play ball in parks across our country and in our high schools.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Velazquez amendment, which sets a minimum of zero to $25 and a waiver for our Nation's most vulnerable who are caught in situations of extreme difficulty or hardship. We must oppose the idea of minimum rent for those who cannot afford it. HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros has already indicated that the recently implemented $25 rents are already causing great hardship for roughly 175,000 families in public and assisted housing nationwide. In my State of Illinois, 2,338 families living in public housing, 1,377 households that receive certificates and vouchers, and 749 families living in section 8 housing, for a total of 4,464 families, have already been negatively affected with the addition of the $25 minimum. These are people who are already straining to meet their families' needs and who are already sometimes choosing between food, medicine, and housing, necessities that we obviously take for granted. The chairman of the subcommittee says that everyone should pay something. Who can argue with that? Except in my State, that would mean an average yearly rental increase of $569, a 32-percent increase, which would affect 19,100 public housing families. It would mean an average yearly increase of $584, or a 23-percent increase, for 5,100 elderly in Illinois. It would mean an average increase of $569, or a 19-percent increase for 1,100 disabled people. Mr. Chairman, the poor in our Nation do not need any more regulations in their minimum rents. They need a livable wage. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this critical amendment, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished chair of the subcommittee for this opportunity. I think that it is clear in section 110 under ``administrative grievance procedure,'' page 38, lines 12 through 24, that six procedures have been laid out that certainly address requirements for expressing these grievances. But the gentlewoman from Texas is expressing a part of the due process concern that I think is legitimate, and I would appreciate any information the distinguished chairman can give with respect to the appellate process to which the gentlewoman from Texas is addressing. It is clear in section 110 that people who live in public housing are to be advised of specific grounds of any of the proposed adverse local housing and management actions. They have an opportunity for a hearing, an opportunity to examine any documents. They are entitled to be represented by another person of their choice at a hearing. They are entitled to ask questions and receive a written decision. But the gentlewoman's fundamental concern, which is a fundamental tenet of justice in this society, is due process, and that is the appellate process. Mr. Chairman, if the distinguished chairman would address that, I would appreciate it.

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

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to make the argument that this is not about quotas in public housing. Residents have the right to participate in making decisions about where they live, and that is just a fact of life. I make decisions about the condominium that I live in here in Washington, DC. The gentlewoman from California certainly makes decisions as a member of a condominium or a cooperative in the neighborhood in which she lives. Mr. Chairman, why should not low income and poor Americans be able to make decisions about the complexes and the developments within which they live? Twenty-five percent, one out of four, three out of 12, four out of 16, is not an unreasonable number to ask for participation from residents to make some determination about the conditions under which they live. I might add, Mr. Chairman, the only real change that is actually occurring here is for the very first time the Federal Government is mandating that residents do participate in local housing authorities. Reality is those of us from middle-class neighborhoods have served in capacities for public housing authorities all across our country and, frankly, the residents have had no say.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is family values. Imagine those of us who live in middle-class neighborhoods, we organize into block clubs, we organize into neighborhood organizations, because it is the local residents who have the knowledge about the community in which they reside to make determinations about their particular community. Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that failure of this amendment says to residents across this country that Washington knows better about the neighborhood and the development in which you reside better than you do, and what could be a more paternalistic view of the condition of people in public housing across our country than that? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to emphatically oppose the United States Housing Act of 1996 as it is currently drafted. In its present form, H.R. unravels 60 years of Federal housing policy by pulling the safety net out from under our Nation's most vulnerable and, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, hits our working poor particularly hard. Adequate and safe housing is a human right and should not be considered by this body as a privilege. Left completely on its own, contrary to what the other side of the aisle would lead us to believe, the market has not and will not provide safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all Americans. The market has a role which I respect and it plays that role well, but its role does not under all circumstances represent the interests of all Americans, especially the poor and low-income Americans. As we consider this critical piece of legislation, we must be mindful of some very dangerous implications implicit in this bill. First, we must maintain the 30-percent income cap imposed by the Brooke amendment for all public housing and rental-assisted tenants. This includes poor and the working poor. Second, we must continue to target housing assistance primarily for the most vulnerable. Third, we cannot impose minimum rents without any kind of hardship exemption upon those without the resources to provide for their families. This includes protecting innocent children and some 750,000 elderly who currently rely upon government assistance for their survival. Fourth, we must work to protect the role of those affected, the residents themselves, in the development of the policies and procedures which govern their day-to-day lives. By leaving the cap on the poorest of the poor those below 30 percent of median income and thus those below the poverty line, as provided for in the manager's amendment, and lifting the cap for those above 30 percent, H.R. 2406 essentially increases the concentration of the poorest of Americans in public housing and abandons the working poor, allowing their rents to be lifted to compensate for dwindling Federal support. The working poor will now be forced to disproportionately spend their meager take-home pay on rent at the expense of other household necessities. While the objective of mixed-income communities is a laudable one, for many reasons this legislation will further exacerbate the affordable housing gap existing in our Nation. Without adequately targeting low and very low-income Americans for assistance, this legislation will drive the poor out of public assisted housing and into overcrowded and unsafe housing, or force people onto the streets. Mr. Chairman, the overriding problem with this and past legislative efforts is that we never have ever provided sufficient funding and resources to allow public housing residents to move beyond public housing. We must be about the business of providing job training and retraining, education, child care, and true opportunities to allow public housing residents to move into private housing and private life. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation if we do not rectify the very serious issues before us. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to emphatically oppose the U.S. Housing Act of 1995 as it is currently drafted. In its present form, H.R. 2406 unravels 60 years of Federal housing policy by pulling the safety net out from under our Nation's most vulnerable and despite rhetoric to the contrary, hits our working poor particularly hard. Adequate and safe housing as a human right, it should not be considered a privilege. As civilization and economies develop, certain basics of the material life--health care, education, food and shelter--should not be turned over completely to market forces, to a ``survival of the fittest'' situation. In such a system, the few always wind up on top with the best and most of everything, while the many end up on the bottom with the least and worst of everything--in this case, housing. Left completely on its own, the market will not provide safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all Americans. The market has a role, which I respect, and it plays its role well. But its role does not under all circumstances, represent the interests of all Americans, especially poor and low-income Americans. The government of, by, and for the people has an important role to play in assuring that every American has safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. This is why we initially passed public housing legislation in 1937, to provide affordable housing for all Americans--housing for those that the market did not serve. Public housing was later expanded to specifically include the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. We should not treat housing like we do peanuts, soybeans, beer, and cars--commodities to be produced, distributed, and sold privately in the market place for profit. Need--the need for adequate and affordable housing, is the basis for the Government's role in housing. If the market addressed the need, then our dilemma would be of a different nature, but it hasn't and it doesn't. Thus, as representatives of all of the American people--not just those that can survive in a private, ``survival of the fittest'' housing market--we must assume our responsibility. In the late 1960's a White House Conference on Housing recommended 26 million new housing starts over the decade of the 1970's, 6 million in public housing and government-assisted housing--2.6 million housing starts per year for 10 years, 600,000 in public or subsidized housing. We have never reached the 2.6 million annual goal. Thus, after two-and- one-half decades of failing to meet that goal, our Nation's people are even more ill-housed than they were 25 years ago. And now some Members of this Congress want to remove the Government's role in requiring that tenants not pay disproportionate portions of their income to provide their families housing above substandard conditions. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2406 will deny many of our Nation's neediest parents the opportunity to raise their children in a climate where their rental contributions do not preclude the provision of household essentials--clothing, medicine, food, and other necessities we take for granted. As we consider this critical legislation, we must be mindful of some very dangerous implications implicit in this bill. First, we must maintain the 30 percent income cap imposed by the Brooke amendment of 1969 for all public housing and rental-assisted tenants, this including the poor and the working poor. Second, we must continue to target housing assistance primarily for our most vulnerable. Third, we cannot impose minimum rents without any kind of hardship exemption upon those without the resources to provide for their families--this includes protecting innocent children and the some 750,000 elderly who currently rely upon governmental assistance for their survival. And fourth, we must work to protect the role of those most affected--the residents themselves, in the development of the policies and procedures which govern their day to day lives. Named for its sponsor, Senator Edward Brooke, the Brooke amendment was enacted into law in 1969 to guarantee that residents of public and assisted housing would pay no more than 25 percent of their income for rent. In 1981, the cap was lifted to 30 percent. The policies represented in H.R. 2406 are going in the exact opposite direction. By leaving the cap on the poorest of the poor--those below 30 percent of median income and thus below the poverty line--as provided for in the managers amendment--and lifting the cap for those above 30 percent-- H.R. 2406 essentially increases concentration of the poorest of Americans in public housing and abandons the working poor--allowing their rents to be lifted to compensate for dwindling federal support. The working poor will now be forced to disproportionately spend their meager take-home pay on rent at the expense of other household necessities. While the objective of mixed-income communities is a laudable one for many reasons, this legislation will further exacerbate the affordable housing gap existing in our Nation. Without adequately targeting low- and very low-income Americans for assistance, this legislation will, in effect, drive the poor out of public and assisted housing, and into overcrowded and unsafe housing, or force people onto the streets. Despite the reality that these provisions do not, on their own merit, adequately provide for affordable housing, to make matters worse, the 300 best-managed authorities will be completely exempted from rent caps and targeting protections. Mr. Chairman, the overriding problem with this and past legislative efforts is that we never provide sufficient funding and resources to allow public housing residents to move beyond public housing. We must be about the business of providing job training and retraining, education, childcare, and true opportunities to allow public housing residents to move into private housing and private life. I encourage my colleagues to enact these kinds of empowerment initiatives to effectuate this kind of societal transformation. Faced with dwindling Federal resources, owners of tenant-assisted housing and public housing authorities will be forced by market realities to prefer tenants who are better able to pay higher rents to make ends meet. After all, where does one go for housing if he or she is making $7,800 a year on average--which is the case for those living in public housing. In most communities, 30 percent of Area Median Income is roughly equivalent to the poverty line. According to HUD studies, it is these families that have the worst case housing needs-- meaning that they are most likely to pay 50 percent or more of their income in rent each month or live in substandard housing. Over 70 percent--71.3 percent--of poor renter households living below the Federal poverty line pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, whereas only 41 percent of all renter households have excessive rent burdens. I oppose the idea of minimum rent for those who cannot afford it. HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros has already indicated that the recently implemented $25 minimum rents are already causing hardships for roughly 175,000 families in public and assisted housing nationwide. In Illinois, 2,338 families living in public housing; 1,377 households that receive certificates and vouchers; and 749 families living in section 8 housing; for a total of 4,464 families have already been negatively effected with the addition of the $25 minimum. These are people who are already straining to meet their families needs and who are already sometimes choosing between food, medicine, and housing. H.R. 2406 contains minimum rents of up to $50. In my State of Illinois, that would mean an average yearly rental increase of $569, a 32-percent increase which would affect 19,100 public housing families. It would mean an average yearly increase of $584, or a 23-percent increase for the 5,100 elderly in Illinois. It would mean an average yearly increase of $569 or a 19-percent increase for 1,100 disabled people. It also would mean an average yearly increase of $525, a 57-percent increase for 3,200 other poor families. Finally, a $50 increase in the rent means an increase of $575, or a 38-percent increase for 9,700 families with children. Mr. Chairman, the legacy of this Congress need not be enshrined in a nation which has given up on the least among us. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation if we do not rectify these serious issues before us.

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