Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am operating under the impression that due process is not asking for very much. If the chairman is very concerned about expediting the process, then we need an expeditious due process concern. I think that the concern that the gentlewoman has raised for this particular administrative grievance procedure is one that the committee should certainly consider, and I would certainly encourage the chairman to consider due process, because we would not want to create a process whereby public housing residents tend to or end up in court because of our failure to honor a fundamental tenet of American justice.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for being kind enough to allow me the opportunity to participate in this special order. I also want to thank and indeed indicate it is a privilege to have the opportunity to serve with the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas in this body. I can assure him as we engage in this colloquy on the minimum wage that we are not going to gang up on him. Mr. Speaker, I heard the debate taking place from my office and I wanted to come down and try and put, at least as I see it, the minimum wage in a particular context, a context that all too often we do not discuss in this Congress. Let me say the very first thing, I think it is important for the purposes of our colloquy that we need to be aware that half of all of the financial assets of our Nation are owned and held by the top 10 percent, and the richest 1 percent of that 10 percent owns almost 40 percent of the Nation's wealth. Are we aware that nearly 80 percent of the assets of the top 1 percent are owned furthermore by the richest one-half of 1 percent, about 500,000 families? The distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative Obey, not long ago indicated, and he certainly has the documentation, that the holdings of those 500,000 families was worth $2.5 trillion in 1983. By 1989, it had risen to $5 trillion. To put that into perspective, the holdings of those families grew by almost three times as much as the national debt grew during that same period. You want to talk about reducing the deficit and the debt? Those 50,000 families could have paid off the entire national debt, not just its growth, and still have owned 10 percent more wealth than they did in 1983. Remember, that does not include the increase in their wealth due to a doubling of the stock market since that time. Now we are talking about cutting even more from the poor so they can provide more tax breaks for the wealthy and do not want to give poor working people a raise in the minimum wage. Let us put the minimum wage, Mr. Dickey, in this particular context: The Federal minimum wage was signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1938. The Democrats' current proposal would increase the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 over 2 years through two 45 cent increases. The last increase passed overwhelmingly by bipartisan vote in 1989 and was implemented in 1990 was also a 90-cent increase in two 45-cent stages. Full-time, minimum wage workers earn $8,500 a year, and a 90 cent increase would raise their yearly income by only $1,800, as much as the average family spends on groceries in over 7 months, to $10,712. Currently the purchasing power of those earning the minimum wage is at a 40-year low. In discussing the minimum wage, we are not talking primarily about high school and teenage workers. We are talking about 12 million people who will benefit from a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage, two-thirds of whom are adults over 20 who bring home half of their family's earnings, and the majority of the minimum wage workers are women. For example, in the State of Michigan, 324,000 workers, representing 11.9 percent of all hourly workers in the State, will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Even Henry Ford understood that his workers had to earn a livable wage that would allow them to buy the cars that they built so they could even build more so that he could even make more money. Certainly the Henry Ford example is certainly indicative of how employers should certainly see an increase in the minimum wage. Let me put this in one last context and then engage in the colloquy along with the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Louisiana. A 90-cent per hour raise to 12 million people will add $10.8 million an hour to the purchasing power of workers. It will add $432 million a week in consumer power to the economy. It will add $22.5 billion a year to the spending growth of our Nation's economy. And even though we contemplate this whole notion of raising the minimum wage so that more Americans can provide for their families, indeed take care of the kind of basic necessities that families indeed need, I am just taken aback when I think about the debate in this Congress, about raising the minimum wage to provide more security for American families. And then I think about the auction last week. Imagine this, according to Time magazine, pearls, not even real pearls, estimated at $500 to $700, they sold for $211,500. A rocking horse, a little horse, estimated at $2,000 to $3,000, sold for $85,000. Even the Terminator purchased five McGregor golf clubs, just five of them, $772,500. Three pillows worth about $50 to $100, $25,300. Pearls estimated at $75,000 sold for $250,000. So I think when we talk about the minimum wage, we also have to recognize that there is a group and a facet in our society that is enjoying tremendous luxury and tremendous wealth, and they are, quite frankly, not paying enough taxes. Any time we can pay golf clubs for $772,000 and there will only be five golf clubs, you cannot even get a good game out of 5 golf clubs, that certainly suggests the kind of inadequacies that this body must address by allowing working people who work in stores, who drive taxicabs, to be able to work their way out of their conditions. Not all of us can afford a big movie. Not all of us can afford the opportunities that have been afforded Members of this body. The only way we can change that is to have some legislation that is sponsored in this body to change the conditions of working people. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The distinguished majority leader has indicated he will resist a minimum wage increase with every fiber of his body. In light of the fact there are working people in our country that we upset about this, we ought to change that.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me thank the gentleman from Louisiana for this opportunity. I want to make sure that we are focusing and keep the minimum wage debate in a particular context. The context is, once again, the top 500,000 families, their net worth in 1983 in this Nation was $2.5 trillion. By 1989 it had risen to $5 trillion. Those families, those business people, they witnessed an increase in their standard of living. They have witnessed an increase in their earnings and in their wage earnings. That is a crowd that paid $700,000 for golf clubs, $300,000 for fake pearls. They need to pay more taxes, which is good. It is American because they are benefiting from America. At the same time, we need to raise the minimum wage of people who do not have the same opportunity that those 500,000 families do. Before I yield back the balance of my time, I just want to show this.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would make the argument that we can avoid this debate and we can avoid rehashing this every 3, 4, or 5 years, since we are 1\1/2\ years past due on increasing the minimum wage, by attaching the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation so that the cost-of-living for working people, and we are not talking about people who are lazy and not working, we are talking about people who are working but at the end of a hard day's work they cannot change their economic situation.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Arkansas for that question, and at any point in time, my distinguished colleagues are more than welcome to try to answer that question. Let us take a case study. Let us say a college student, who is working at McDonald's or Burger King, or at any particular minimum wage paying job, earning $8,500 a year, assuming they are working full time, from 9 to 5. And, obviously, they are not because they are a college student. $8,500 a year is not enough money to even pay off one's student loan to go to a 4-year, 1 year on a full academic scholarship costs more than $8,500 at a State-run institution. So no matter how hard that student is working, and that we are promoting them because of their education, and that they have a serious work ethic, the reality is no matter how serious their work ethic is or their educational advancements or the opportunity that we provide for them, they are not able to work their way even to meet their current obligations, which include their loans. Let me say to the gentleman from Arkansas, I think that it probably makes sense, and I would like the gentleman from New York to possibly respond to this, why not look at the minimum wage and index it to inflation so that we do not have to engage in this debate every year and a half.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for yielding this time to me, and for his forthright vision in honoring the late Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join my colleagues in sponsoring this resolution in honor of Secretary Ron Brown and the others who lost their lives on Wednesday, April 3. The tragic plane crash and death of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown is a personal loss, as well as a national loss of a great public servant. In addition to being a professional colleague, I was a close personal friend, not only of Ron Brown, but of his entire family, his wife Alma, his two children, Tracey and Michael, and his brother Chip Brown. Our prayers are with Ron Brown's family and with all of the families who lost loved ones in this terrible tragedy--Bill Morton, Carol Hamilton, Duane Christian, Kathryn Hoffman, and the others. It is a reminder to all of us to be good stewards of the time and talent that God has given us on this Earth, and to use it to serve others to the best of our abilities. I was with Secretary Ron Brown just a couple of weeks ago at a breakfast meeting. He came up to me and congratulated me on my election to Congress. He said, ``I am so proud of you.'' The feeling was mutual, I was also proud of him. I was appointed to the Democratic National Committee [DNC] by Paul Kirk, largely at the behest of Ron Brown, who shortly thereafter was chosen as the chairman of the DNC. As Chair of the DNC, he is credited with running a coordinated campaign, which not only elected Democrats to the Senate and House, but helped to elect Bill Clinton President of the United States. Shorty, thereafter, he was appointed Secretary of Commerce, where he did a splendid job for the President and for the country. Ron Brown was the convention manager for my father's Presidential campaign in 1988, where he used his bridge-building skills to close the gap between progressives and the more conservative members of our party. In many ways, even more than business development, that is Ron Brown's legacy. He was a gifted bridge builder--bridging the gaps of human misunderstanding and fear; and building human trust and understanding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. For another question. The gentleman had a distinguished career serving in the Louisiana State legislature before becoming a Member of this august and esteemed body. I would like to ask the gentleman if he could articulate some of the considerations as a State legislator that you confronted when you came into the census and the reapportionment period in your State legislature. It clearly was not just racial considerations. There clearly were other considerations. Could the gentleman lay out some of those?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Why is it that your district in Louisiana, why is it you feel your district has been singled out above all other districts in that State?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, there is also an assumption that African-Americans are incapable of representing people beyond just African-Americans. My district, for example, is about 65 percent African-American, about 30 percent white, 5 percent Jewish, and others. So I am capable, as a Member of Congress, of representing a diverse district, as you are capable of representing a diverse district. All the shape of these districts do is allow us an equal opportunity of competing. When Democrats in the State legislatures or Republicans in the State legislatures get finished drawing lines in the State to accomplish their political wills, African-Americans are never even considered, Latinos are never even considered. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that these State legislatures take into account race as a factor, not the factor in drawing congressional districts. We have some Members of this Congress whose districts are drawn in such a way to be economically gerrymandered. That is, they only represent large industries and big businesses. You have others whose districts are drawn representing primarily farmland. Well, our districts primarily are inner city and they must take into account the needs of the inner city, which more than likely are represented by African-Americans.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for the vigilance that he has shown and the people of the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana as they have fought to uphold the law of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which has in part and in no small measure created the kind of diversity in the Federal Government, the kind of diversity in State government, the kind of diversity in political legislative bodies all across our country. There has never been since Plessy versus Ferguson was decided in 1897 which ran 22 African-Americans out of this distinguished body and ran African-Americans and other minorities out of State legislatures around this country the kind of representation that African-Americans, Latinos, women, and other minorities in this country presently have come to appreciate. I want to offer certainly a level of congratulations again to the gentleman from Louisiana for those State legislators who are presently in Louisiana filibustering the attempt by that State legislature to undermine the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana. I want to offer this evening an historical perspective and then hear from the gentleman from Louisiana and then engage the gentleman in a colloquy about the sustenance of the Voting Rights Act of 1968. In June 1993, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that threatened to return this country to the days of separate but equal. The decision in voting rights mocked the reality of persistent racial inequality in America in the name of a color-blind society. Using the Constitution's guarantee of equality, the Court has given the green light to willful racial exclusion in the political process. In the past, damaging interpretations of civil rights laws could be minimized by congressional amendments to clarify the law. The Court's ruling in these voting rights cases calls into question our ability to seek redress in this, the body of the people. In Shaw versus Reno, after the creation of majority African-American congressional districts in North Carolina, blacks elected the first African-American to Congress since Reconstruction. Even with two majority African-American districts, white voters who make up 76 percent of that State's population, continued to control more than their share, 83 percent, of North Carolina congressional seats. Yet the Court suggested that one majority black district, because it was irregular in shape, was nothing more than an effort to segregate the races, and I quote, for the purposes of voting. It said that such a district would, quote unquote, threaten to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters. The Court is, in fact, saying that racial injustice no longer exists. In reality, we live in a political system that is so racially divided that race matters more than any one factor in a voter's choice of candidates in American. Political encumbents whose main goal in redistricting is to insure their own reelection, they know this. And when they draw the district lines, computer technology can tell them the racial composition of every census block. Indeed, many majority white districts are drawn to exclude African-Americans and preserve white constituencies in the last reapportionment, they look as unusual as the black districts singled out by the Supreme Court. In many cases, compact minority districts are hard to draw because African-Americans and Hispanics are concentrated in isolated communities. The census blocks in these communities were defined long ago by legalized residential segregation. This was the target of Dr. King's last civil rights march in 1966. Creating majority black districts does not harm white voters. Indeed, there is no State in the country in which whites are underrepresented in State legislatures or in this body, the 104th Congress. Even with enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, African-Americans and other minorities continue to be barred from their fair share of political power nationwide. Given the racial division among voters and the bitter history of African-American electoral exclusion, African-American districts provide the most widely accepted means of allowing black voters full participation, a bear minimum for citizenship in this democracy. Concern with the shape of a district should obviously pale in comparison. When Shaw versus Reno was decided, too many in the voting rights community initially sought to characterize it as a narrow decision which, while potentially damaging, it was not a fundamental attack on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I was very concerned about this opinion because I viewed it as a signal that it would encourage those opposed to the Voting Rights Act to challenge it everywhere. This is exactly what has happened since the Shaw decision. Mr. Speaker, voting rights and the law protecting these rights were one of the few areas to remain largely intact following the Reagan and Bush onslaught. In voting rights cases, they must first prove intentional discrimination on the part of the State to succeed in a Voting Rights Act case. Congress disagreed with the City of Mobile versus Bolden and they disagreed with the Supreme Court's interpretation and ruling in the Bolden case, and in 1982, they amended the Voting Rights Act to specifically overrule that decision. In fact, Congress strengthened the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis to make it plain that discrimination against minority voters continued to persist and that an important test was not intent, which is often difficult to prove, but instead was the effect on minority voters. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1982 amendments in Thornburg versus Gingles, and it was against this background that the State legislatures determined the Constitution required that majority-minority districts be drawn to avoid violating the law. The Shaw decision resurrected the intent question by turning the Voting Rights Act on its head in order to recognize the right of white plaintiffs, who do not even live in these congressional districts, to challenge districts that were intended in the first place to lead to greater minority representation in this body, in the Louisiana State Legislature and the North Carolina Legislature, in State legislatures around this country. The objective of the Voting Rights Act was to desegregate the institutions of power that heretofore historically had been denied to African-Americans, women, and to other minorities. Most recently, in the Fifth Circuit decision in Hays versus Louisiana, they sought to apply Shaw to answer a totally different question: Is there a compelling State interest in designating a congressional district using race as one of many criteria so that racial minorities have an equal opportunity of winning? The court in Hays concluded that the Louisiana plan, the seat of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling State interest. Hayes was obviously troubling for a number of reasons. To recognize the standing of white citizens to attack majority-minority districts, the court cited regents of the University of California versus Bakke in 1978, in addition to Shaw and Croson. Thus, the fact of a color-blind Constitution and country was elevated by the case in Louisiana, Hays versus Louisiana, to strike down the Louisiana plan. The Hays court relied on a 1964 decision, Wright versus Rockefeller, a case that was decided before the Voting Rights Act of 1964, to define a racially gerrymandered districting plan as one that, quote unquote, intentionally draws one or more districts along racial lines or otherwise segregates citizens into voting districts based on their race. The court also cited Bolden in support of this point. The Hays court seems to have ignored the fact that the 1982 amendments by this Congress overturned Bolden. The only citation the court makes of those amendments is to assert that section 2 expressly declares that proportional representation is not required. On Thursday, June 30, 1994, exactly 1 year to the day after the Shaw versus Reno decision undermined a North Carolina redistricting plan designed to give African-Americans greater representation after Reconstruction, the Court struck again. In two separate opinions, a Florida case, Johnson versus DeGrande, and a Georgia case Holder versus Hall, the Court sought to limit a broad interpretation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 outlaws all forms of voter discrimination. Congress intended a broad interpretation so as to be able to address the various and subtle forms of voter denial, but the Court appears increasingly unwilling to use an interpretation that expands the notion of democracy for all Americans. As a New York Times editorial said, the Court was driven by a core of justices who evince no respect for Congress whatsoever. Justice Clarence Thomas and Mr. Antonin Scalia are leading the challenge against the Voting Rights Act. And so today, there are legislators in Louisiana who are engaged in a filibuster so that the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana will remain intact. I brought, today, a map to show the changes that the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana has gone through in the last year. In the Louisiana case, the Court said racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional. In a State 30-percent black, only two Congresspersons have been elected since Reconstruction. The first Louisiana plan, 65 percent black, 35 percent white. The second Louisiana plan after this plan was thrown out created a new congressional district, 55 percent black, 45 percent white. And now the State legislature in Louisiana is presently filibustering to keep the third plan from becoming a matter of law, thus moving this district 70 percent white to 30 percent black. So a district that is almost 50 percent black and 50 percent white has been declared unconstitutional, but now we have a district that the court, Reagan-appointed judges and Nixon-appointed judges in Louisiana are now saying that a district 70 percent white but with 30 percent minorities is constitutional. I would like to yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I do want to apologize, because I am going to step away for a few moments. I wanted to show you a map of congressional districts around the country, particularly southern congressional districts that are now being challenged as a result of the decisions that are coming out of Louisiana, that are coming out of North Carolina, and that are certainly coming out of Florida. It is really interesting to note, when we look at the district formerly held by Barbara Jordan, Mickey Leland, and presently held by Sheila Jackson-Lee, and the districts held by Representative Fields, and by Mrs. Meek and Alcee Hastings in Florida, when we look at the district of Cynthia McKinney, we note that these districts were drawn to desegregate the institution of Congress, to give African-Americans in a State where they have significant populations, like the State of Louisiana, an equal opportunity of winning. If there is any one thing that can be said about the present attacks on the Voting Rights Act, it is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been effective. It has indeed worked. The reality is between 1863, after the slaves had been freed, between 1863 and 1896, 22 African- Americans were elected to serve in this Congress, and because, quite frankly, in a bipartisan way many Democrats and many Republicans during first Reconstruction sought to conspire to undermine the progress that many African-Americans had made in first Reconstruction. That was the Tilden-Hayes Compromise of 1877. By 1896 they had stacked the Court, a conservative Court. They gave us Plessy versus Ferguson. And by 1901, even through we had 22 African- Americans in Congress, a gentleman stood right here on this floor and said, ``We will be back.'' By 1901 there were zero blacks in Congress. It was not until the 1954 Brown versus The Board of Education decision establishing the principle of equal protection under the law was decided by the Supreme Court that the Voting Rights Act then took the impetus from the Supreme Court, along with the Civil Rights Act and a whole host of other legislation that sought to apply the principle of equal protection under the law to every facet of American life. Therein lies the foundation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: lines drawn in such a way as to create an equal opportunity for African- Americans, for Latinos, and for others to serve not only in this body but in State legislatures around the country. Let me just at this point say that even with the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, African-Americans and other minorities continued to be barred from a fair share of political power nationwide. For example, there are now slightly over 7,500 African-American elected officials, but African-Americans are about 12 to 13 percent of the population and there are nearly 500,000 offices. Thus, 12 percent of 500,000 is roughly 60,000 political offices that should be rightfully held by African-Americans. Seven thousand five hundred is a mere 1.5 percent of the offices that should be held by African-Americans if elected on a fair basis, if they did not have to go through annexations and gerrymandering and constant political games, if you will, that are played by many State legislatures around this country.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I certainly would.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the founder of the annual April 22 Earth Day, former Senator Gaylord Nelson, said the record of the 104th Congress shows this to be the worst environmental Congress ever. The majority leadership in this body has attempted to roll back years of environmental progress to provide favors for its special interest friends. Because of budget cuts by the majority in this Congress, the Environmental protection Agency has missed thousands of inspections and enforcement actions. This same majority has shifted costs from polluters to taxpayers, while cleanups have been slowed at 400 toxic waste sites and stopped at 60 Superfund sites. Because funds to implement six administrative rules have been cut, hundreds of millions of pounds of pollution entered our water supply that could have been prevented. While never aggressively pursued, adequately funded or fully enforced, our environmental laws were working. Yet, there is much to be done. It is time for the majority in the 104th Congress to clean up its environmental act.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I represent the Second Congressional District of Illinois, where education is considered sacred. This Nation should have no higher priority than to educate its populace. Senator Dole and a majority of the Republicans in the Senate voted 84 to 16 on Tuesday to restore funding for key education and job training programs. Now that Senator Dole is candidate Dole, he has religion. Yet, in this body, there is still a majority in the majority who are determined to cut funding for basic education and math skills, cut funding for safe and drug-free schools, cut funding for vocational education, and that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, education helps preserve family values. Education is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is good for business. It is good for meaningful, well-paying, and socially useful jobs. Education aids economic growth and keeps us competitive in the global marketplace, adds quality to a person's life, and enhances one's self-image. A mind, Mr. Speaker, is a terrible thing to waste. It is time some Republicans in this body got religion and supported the full funding of education.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern over the serious implications of the Immigration Act of 1995. We must all be concerned that the steps that are taken to address legal and undocumented immigration are reflective of the civil liberties and protections implicit in our democratic system of government and treasured by all Americans. As a native Chicagoan, I have personally witnessed the immense contributions that immigrants from immigrants from Ireland, Eastern Europe, Central and South America, and Africa have made to enrich our social fabric and economic vitality. Unfortunately, today we are faced with a measure that unfairly capitalizes on public fears about illegal immigration in order to reduce the number of people who join our society, driving a wedge between those U.S. citizens who merely seek to be reunited with their family members. Attempting to resolve both legal and illegal immigration policies simultaneously serves only to convolute these issues of significant social import. For these reasons, Congress should instead pursue separate consideration of legal and undocumented immigration as has been recommended by many of our colleagues in this and the other body. I am equally concerned about draconian attempts to deny education to undocumented children. The Supreme Court, in Plyler versus Doe held that children born on U.S. soil are entitled to 14th amendment protections. By barring children from the classroom, we will not only be preventing a lifetime of potential, but also, we will be working to deny them equal protection under the law. Punishing children on the basis of their parent's immigration status is not only unfair and mean- spirited, but its effects will no doubt negatively reverberate throughout our communities. Mr. Speaker, I am likewise concerned about the so-called employee verification system which has been proffered as a means to enhance employment enforcement. As the representative from the Second Congressional District of Illinois, I am honored to represent the 24,342 foreign-born individuals who reside in my district. The possibility that these citizens may be selected for the pilot program frightens me because such a system would not only fail in protecting worker's rights but would in all likelihood lead to unauthorized uses of this database, posing new dangers to civil liberties for people who look foreign, thereby encouraging discriminatory and unconstitutional behavior. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to review these and other issues with care as we consider the future implications of this bill. As we today appreciate the richness of our social fabric we must likewise think of our legacy. Mr. Speaker, I urge us not to turn our backs on the many peoples which contribute to our cultural wealth, and for this reason will today oppose H.R. 2202 as it is drafted. Let us extend the invitation to another generation. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses who yearn to breathe free.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me first offer my condolences to the family of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor the memory of a great and cherished man, pioneer, and leader, Mr. Robert Edward Johnson of Chicago, associate publisher and executive editor of Jet magazine. A longtime family friend and mentor, Mr. Johnson bridged the gap between African-American journalists of the past and the media celebrities of today. His life traced that of the civil rights era--a Morehouse College classmate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he was the first reporter of a major publication on the scene of the Montgomery bus boycott. He critically linked social action with mass communication, thereby changing the complexion of American journalism and propelling our historic struggle to victory. Through his example, he challenged and inspired his progeny to strive for excellence. For his immense contribution to our Nation and our world, we shall remember and honor him with eternal gratitude. Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with his wife Naomi--Nemi--their children, grandchildren, and numerous loved ones. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a biography of Mr. Johnson's lifetime achievements and contributions. Robert Edward Johnson died Wednesday morning, December 27, 1995 at his Hyde Park, Chicago home after a long illness. He was laid to rest on Tuesday, January 2nd. He was a role model and mentor for thousands of journalists and a friend and confidant of many, including entertainment superstars like Bill Cosby and Michael Jackson and people of all walks of life. He loved everybody and got as much joy out of telling the stories of unheralded people in Jet as he got out of telling the stories of world leaders and celebrities. He was the author of the book, ``Bill Cosby: In Words and Pictures.'' Johnson covered some of the major stories of the time and was the first representative of a major national publication on the scene at the beginning of the Montgomery Bus boycott. A graduate of Morehouse College, where he was a classmate of Martin Luther King Jr., and a student of the great educator Benjamin E. Mays, Johnson played a major role in helping to publicize the King crusade in America and in Chicago. John H. Johnson, chairman and CEO of Johnson Publishing Company, said, ``The company has lost a great editor, and I have lost a dear friend. Bob Johnson was a great journalist who inspired and taught tens of thousands of aspiring journalists, Black and White. During his 42-year career as Jet managing editor and executive editor, he helped change the color of American journalism.'' Born in Montgomery, Alabama on August 13, 1922, and reared in Birmingham, Alabama, he was an active journalist for most of his 73 years. He began his career as a child, throwing papers for local dailies, selling editions of Black weeklies on street corners, and founding his high school newspaper, the Westfield Trail Blazer. At Morehouse College, from which he graduated in 1948, he edited the Morehouse Maroon Tiger and was a stringer for national newspapers. In 1952, he received a master's degree in journalism from Syracuse University. During World War II, he served in the U.S. Navy and was transferred to editorial duties at Treasure Island's Naval Base in Masthead, which published a racist joke that was offensive to African Americans. He later became the first African American managing editor of the weekly tabloid. Johnson's professional career began in 1948 with the Atlanta Daily World, where he later became city editor. He joined the Jet staff in February 1953, two years after it was founded by Publisher John H. Johnson, and played a major role in the success of the weekly newsmagazine which is known around the world. Johnson covered stories in Europe, Asian, and Africa. In 1972, he was among the journalist who accompanied President Nixon to Russia, Poland, Austria and Iran. In 1979, he accompanied U.S. Ambassador Andrew Young on a trade mission tour of Africa. Johnson was cited repeatedly for his contributions to journalism. He was a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and was associated with the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, the World Federation of Scottish Societies, the DuSable Museum of African American History, Alpha Kappa Delta, National Black Journalist Association, the Chicago Headline Club, Operation Push, the NAACP and National Urban League. He was a member of the Board of Trustees of Dillard University and received honorary degrees from Dillard, Morehouse College, Miles College and Texas College. He was a member of University Church. He is survived by his wife Naomi (Nemi) Cole Johnson, their three children, Bobbye Johnson, Attorney Janet Johnson-Vinion and Robert III; two grandchildren, Chloe and Cole Johnson- Vinion; three brothers, Percy Johnson of Dayton, Ohio; Washington Johnson and J.C. Johnson of Birmingham, Ala.; one sister, Lena Pace of Birmingham, Ala. and a host of nieces, nephews and friends.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for yielding me time this evening. We really need to stop kidding the American people. I support a balanced budget. Most Democrats do. But can we project natural disasters for the next 7 years? Can we project hurricanes on the east coast for the next 7 years? Earthquakes on the west coast for the next 7 years? Or floods in the Midwest? Can we project wars present and unseen? Are we making decisions for a Congress yet to be elected severely restricting their ability to set the Nation's priorities as they see fit based on national need? And so if you like I am tired of hearing Republicans talking about the Federal budget deficit and the debt, those who are primarily responsible for deliberately creating deficits acting like they are actually concerned about them, then maybe you are ready to listen to something real about reducing budget deficits. How did we get in this mess? David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's Director of Office of Management and Budget, revealed first in the Atlantic Monthly and later in his book that the Republican strategy in 1981 was to deliberately create huge budget deficits and dramatically drive up the national debt as a way of forcing cutbacks in domestic social spending. For a little bit of perspective. For over 200 years from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, the accumulated national debt was $908 billion. After just 12 years of Reagan and Bush economic policies, huge tax breaks for the rich, originally $750 billion, reduced in 1983 to $600 billion, and massive military spending, $750 billion over 5 years, the debt actually quadrupled to nearly $4 trillion. One expert has estimated that tax cuts enacted since the late 1970's for the richest 1 percent of families cost the Federal treasury $164 billion in 1992. For example, $84 billion in decreased revenues and $80 billion in interest on the accumulated debt. The Reagan-Bush fiscal policies which on the one hand allowed the rich to pay less for their fair share of taxes, on the other hand forced the Government to borrow from them to finance the debt, a double bonanza for the very wealthiest Americans. The deficit must be put in perspective. Deficit fixation and attempts to cut the deficit too deeply and too quickly can paralyze efforts to bring about much needed domestic change. It can drag the economy down, increase unemployment, and actually increase the deficit itself. Borrowing per se is not necessarily bad. Borrowing to buy a house or to fund one's education is different than borrowing to pay off a gambling debt or to buy drugs or to buy alcohol. Therefore, there is an important difference between consumption expenditures and investment expenditures. Additionally, if one takes out a mortgage on a house and then gets a promotion and a significant salary increase on their job, the mortgage payment actually becomes less burdensome. Therefore, the size of the deficit in and of itself is not a drag on the economy. When business does not expand, it is because of lack of demand, not necessarily because of the budget deficit. Thus if the economy were to become a high-growth, high-wage, full-employment economy, the burden of the deficit would actually decline. Another argument from the Republicans for deficit reduction is that the deficit pushes up interest rates. During the 1980s, when the deficit shot up, interest rates remained essentially the same. Why? Because there is a much stronger link between Federal Reserve policies and rising interest rates than there are between the deficit and rising interest rates. Perspective also means seeing the deficit in relationship to the size of the economy. The sum may be large in 1995, but in 1945 due to the unprecedented size of wartime expenditures, the Federal deficit was more than 22 percent of GDP, compared to roughly 5 percent in 1993. A rise in unemployment and the resulting loss of production that often ensues is a far worse drain on the economy than the deficit. In Germany, for example, with the Weimar government's memory of hyperinflation in the 1920's and high unemployment during the depression of the 1930's--among union members in 1932 it was 44 percent--they chose classic budget deficit reduction policies instead of government spending on public works and an expansion of the money supply. The resulting mass unemployment helped to pave the road to fascism. Obsession with the budget deficit creates even more tragic deficits. Our deficits are also in rundown infrastructure of our roads, of our bridges, of our airports, of waste disposal facilities and lack of environmental protection. They are also in our failure to combat crime and drugs and in a significant part of a generation growing up semiliterate, in an unending cycle of poverty. Our deficits are in an educational system increasingly falling behind other systems in the world, and in gaps in child care, health care and inadequate housing of millions of Americans. We are a Nation of enormous national wealth. We are just tragically suffering from an anemia of national will to do what we know is just. The gentleman mentioned a few moments ago a mother and her children. If a mother has three children, and two pork chops, she does not conclude that she has one excess child. A mother takes two pork chops and she makes gravy and she expands that meal to take care of three children. That is what a caring mother should do. It is certainly what caring Government should do.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for yielding once again. During the course of my most recent campaign in the Second Congressional District, I had the privilege of speaking at Bowen High School, around 89th and Commercial on the South Side of Chicago. I was meeting with the principal, Mrs. Alverez in her office. I happened to notice on a mural that was in her office, I saw African Americans and Haitians, male and female, all going to work at a steel mill known as USX, United States Steel. In the middle of this mural was a large furnace. Out of the back of that furnace was coming rail and coming engines and coming bridges and tremendous infrastructure. Two blocks from Bowen High School is 600 abandoned acres of United States Steel where USX used to be. If you step outside of the principal's office now, you see metal detectors. There are students at Bowen High School wearing uniforms. What are you saying? I am saying that there is a relationship between that mural, between those metal detectors, between the behavior of our children, between the absence of those jobs and the number one growth industry in our country: jails. We have more public housing, more public housing has been in the form of jails in the last year than it has been in the form of building public housing and affordable housing for the American people, while it costs more for us to incarcerate Americans in jails than it does to put Americans through college and put them back to work. So, we must not only measure our budget deficit in terms of numbers, which the Republicans so skillfully illustrate on this floor, we must measure our budget deficit in our failure as a nation to reinvest not only in our infrastructure but, most importantly, in our people. When we reinvest in our people, the return on our investment actually plays a role in reducing the deficit.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman once again for yielding. I would go so far as to say that when we look and compare the Republican method of balancing the budget, they plan to balance the budget in 7 years with deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, four times greater than any health cuts in history, deep cuts in education, a rollback obviously in environmental protection, and a tax increase on working families. The President's balanced budget approach is much different. He balances the budget in 7 years while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment and targeting tax relief to the middle class without any new tax increase on working families. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The issue here is about direction. Are we going to balance the budget on the backs of people who are poor and who are defenseless and cannot come and participate in this august body or part of this conversation? Who is asking and who is being asked to forgo what? Students are being asked to forgo interest rates on loans. Seniors are being asked to forgo Medicare. There are 41 million Americans who have no form of health care at all and are not part of any debate. There are 19 million people who are working part-time jobs and they are being asked to forgo full-time work. There are 8 million homeless people, roughly 8 million homeless people who are being asked to forgo housing. There are youth who are being asked to forgo education. Our cities are being asked to forgo development while we balance this budget. In my district, if I may take a moment of personal privilege, the cities of Harvey and Phoenix and Posen and Robbins and Dixmoor are being asked to forgo debt forgiveness while we can forgive the debt of Mexico. We can forgive the debt of the Soviet Union and former Eastern Bloc countries, but we cannot forgive the debt of townships in our own districts and in our own country. There is nothing wrong with balancing the budget. We agreed that that should happen. The only issue is what direction that balanced budget should take.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker and distinguished Members of the House, I am honored to be a servant of this body. I want to thank God, who has called our family to public service and blessed me with the ability and the will to serve. It is faith in God and the strength of my family that made this exalted position of service possible. The Rainbow Coalition gave me the opportunity to serve and grow. We must expand the Rainbow Spirit across the land. We must let a new generation arise. I want to thank and acknowledge my family--my wife Sandi, my parents, Rev. and Mrs. Jesse Jackson, my sister Santita, my brother Jonathan and his wife Marilyn, Yusef, and little Jackie, Grandma and Grandpa Brown, my grandmother Matilda Burns and Helen Jackson, who could not be present. My ambition and my focus is clear. I want to do God's will, and I believe it to be His will that we lift the lot of suffering humanity. Where there are walls that divide, we must build bridges and bring peace to a war torn world, whether Bosnia or Nigeria. I want to honor the citizens of the Second Congressional District of Illinois who entrusted me to represent them, to make the best case possible to improve the quality of life for all of them. For those who voted for me, and those who did not, for those who were too young to vote, and for those who've given up on the vote, because they no longer dream or believe, that change will come. I promised the seniors of my district that I would fight to save their Medicare, and the youth of my district to save their scholarships. I promised to fight for affordable housing, to uplife the conditions of people in Altgeld Gardens, Ginger Ridge, Ford Heights, and the many communities across my district, where living conditions have not changed in two generations. They are not lazy, or welfare kings or queens, they want to work, but they need the opportunity to work. Last, I want to be a public servant who is mostly known as a freedom fighter of character in the best tradition of Jesus The Christ, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and my dad, Jesse Jackson, Sr. Our character is measured by how we treat the least of these. I will fight with all of my might for a public policy that will wipe out malnutrition and save the malnourished. A public policy of full employment, healthcare, housing, and an education safety net for all of the American people. I want to defend the defenseless. I want them to dream again and stop recycling nightmares. We must choose schools instead of jails for our future. Let the children dream. Let the seniors dream again. Let them hope. Let them believe. Revive their spirits. Let all of us hope. I look forward to learning from you and to working with you. Together, we must make the American Dream possible for all of America's people. Thank you. [The following portion was delivered in both English and Spanish.] Mr. Speaker, in the time I have left, I would like to say that I share a dream, and I called it ``I Too Have a Dream:'' That the southside will look like the northside. That Rainbow Beach will look like North Avenue Beach. That the Dusable Museum will be funded like the Field Museum. That southside and suburban children will receive funding like the northside for parks, zoos, restaurants and piers with ferris wheels. That equal funding for education will be a reality in this generation. That more county money will be used for preschool and afternoon school programs than incarceration programs. It is my hope that I can look forward to working with Members of Congress, and working with each and every one of you. Together, we must make the American dream possible for all of Americans, for America's people. Thank you, and God bless you all.