[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT UNDER ATTACK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fields, is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             general leave

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on the 
subject of this special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to address an 
issue that is very important to the integrity of our institution of 
Government. The 1965 Voting Rights Act signaled the advent of change in 
our Nation, change that was to reform our representative bodies. But 
that reform is under a misguided attack today; an attack that threatens 
the progress made by the election of thousands of African Americans and 
Hispanics to office, from Congress to local school boards, in 
fulfillment of the Voting Rights Act. As a Congressman, I am vigilant 
about such threats; as an American, I desire respectability and 
equality in our Government; but as an African American, I am frightened 
that the important progress that we have made may be turned back.
  In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to provide minorities 
opportunities to fully participate in the political process; 
participation that had been denied for so long; 100 years after the 
Civil War, States across the country were still using poll taxes, 
literacy tests, and gerrymandering to undermine the political voice of 
black minority communities. In State legislatures, lines were drawn to 
split black communities among districts to prevent their political 
strength, and to prevent the election of candidates of their choice.
  African Americans were subject to insulting and unconscionable 
mechanisms to disenfranchise and deny their voting rights. Questions 
were asked only to African Americans as a condition of voting, these 
trivial and irrelevant questions insulted blacks who desired only to 
vote--recite parts of the State constitution, and how many bubbles are 
in a bar of soap, for example. Because they could not tell the 
registrar of voters--educated African Americans--lawyers, Ph.D.'s, 
doctors, were prevented from voting. Most important thing about these 
incidents is that they are remembered by many people today; this is our 
very recent past, remembered and felt by many voters. The blatant 
racism incorporated in our political institutions was little more than 
one generation ago. Black voters in many Southern States were met by 
riots and lynchings only 30 years ago.
  For context, let me point out that the youngest member of this 103d 
Congress was born several years before enactment of the revolutionary 
Voting Rights Act--me! We must always treat the issue of redistricting 
and voting rights in the context of our country's history.
  There are many communities in my district such as Lake Providence and 
Monroe, where residents react with both joy and amazement to see a 
Member of Congress and to know that there are Members of Congress from 
their community.
  A district created in compliance with the Voting Rights Act provides 
the opportunity for African Americans to get elected.
  This is the goal that is so important. Access to political 
institutions brings communities representation that they have never 
before known.
  The Voting Rights Act is the centerpiece of legislation that changed 
this Nation for the better, and which has begun to change Congress. Not 
only does it prohibit the traditional, subtle and invidious tactics of 
State legislatures to dilute the voting strength of black communities, 
but it requires the creation of districts in which a minority candidate 
has the opportunity to get elected. This mandate is crucial to fairness 
and equality in voting rights.
  Many of those who argue against the voting rights districts simply 
dismiss the past as an unfortunate chapter in our history. But that 
chapter is still being written; we are not past it, and many of us, our 
constituents and friends, remember the insulting and demeaning ways 
disenfranchisement occurred. We cannot relegate the history and context 
of the issue to the past, but we must realize that the work of the 
Voting Rights Act is ongoing and must continue.
  Slowly but steadily in the 1950's and 1960's our institutions were 
reformed and integrated. Schools, universities, transportation, the 
workplace, public facilities--all were the subject of direct efforts to 
integrate. These institutions have been changed for the better and are 
important to our Nation.
  But our most important institutions--our representative bodies--have 
been last to integrate and reform. The strongest elements of the 1965 
Voting Rights Act were not enforced for many years.
  Though it was unenforced for 25 years, progress has been made 
recently. But today, however, we find that progress and the Voting 
Rights Act are under a strange attack. The same arguments that opposed 
the Voting Rights Act in 1965 today are used to attack districts 
created by it. The shape of the districts, the opponents argue, is more 
important than the civil rights principal of fair representation. It is 
an argument used to avoid the real issue of integrating our political 
institutions. That is the goal of the Voting Rights Act and 
integration--reform of the institution.
  When schools are integrated, we override concerns about what 
neighborhoods the children come from to achieve the greater goal. The 
same values are expressed in insuring Voting Rights. Our concerns about 
the preferred shapes of districts must submit to the overriding 
national goal of an integrated Congress. This value judgment was 
expressed by Congress in the Voting Rights Act.
  The role of Government in urging the reform of institutions is very 
important, but we must remain focused on the real goal. With the 
landmark integration of schools as an example, the Court in Brown 
versus Board of Education did not detail which neighborhoods children 
must come from; the Court demanded the integration of schools with all 
deliberate speed.
  With Congress, the process should be similar: the details of the 
districts should not overwhelm the important goal of integrating the 
Congress. At the core, those opposing voting rights districts elevate 
the shape of a district over its function. Providing minorities 
political opportunities becomes, in their arguments, less important 
than traditional district shapes. But I know we all see through the 
argument: traditional districts yield a traditional and segregated 
Congress. Focusing on the shape of the districts, as opponents of 
voting rights district have done, is a red herring.
  In East Carroll Parish of Louisiana, where unemployed outnumber those 
with jobs, I visit and my concerns about jobs in that rural area are 
the same as for unemployed families in downtown Baton Rouge.
  To the people of these communities, the shape of the district is not 
nearly important as the fact that I am listening and working in 
Congress to create jobs; I am working with them to address the problems 
of their rural schools; I meet with them and they know I will work to 
confront the problems that they have been faced with for so long.
  Of much greater concern than the unusual shape of a district is the 
character of Congress. Without voting right districts, Congress would 
continue as a largely segregated institution, which we can see from the 
1980's, before voting rights districts were enforced. In 1982, North 
Carolina was 22 percent black, but all 11 Congressmen were white; South 
Carolina was 30 percent black, but all 6 Congressmen were white.
  Now that is unconstitutional. This is the picture that should stir 
Americans to the defense of the Voting Rights Act.
  Without voting rights districts, Congress would not be integrated; it 
would not even closely represent the communities of America. More 
examples from the 1980's include Florida, where all 19 Congressmen were 
white, but Florida's population was 14 percent black; all of 
Louisiana's 8 Representatives were white, but her population was 30 
percent black; and, all 10 Virginia Congressmen were white, but 
Virginia's population was 19 percent black. This picture is from the 
1980's without voting rights districts--not long ago--and it is what 
would happen if opponents of the Voting Rights Act succeed.
  It is certain that people react instinctively to the unusual shape of 
voting rights districts; but the reaction to an all-white congressional 
delegation is much more fierce and righteous.
  Without the creation of voting rights districts, States will continue 
to deprive minorities of political strength. And the code of the 
arguments against voting rights districts is transparent: traditional 
districts means a traditional Congress, as segregated Congress.
  It is also very important to remember that Congress is but the tip of 
the iceberg; representative bodies from the State legislative to the 
local school board are integrated by the creation of voting rights 
districts. Thousands of black candidates have been elected, integrating 
and improving what have long been segregated institutions. Without 
voting rights districts, the tremendous gains at these levels will be 
lost.
  Congress needs voting rights districts; the institution is improved 
by them. In 1965 Congress and the Nation saw the need for strong, 
affirmative civil rights laws.
  The Voting Rights Act has been fully enforced for only a few years 
and its remedial work is far from over.
  The distorted attack on voting rights threatens the terrific gains 
minorities have made in the political process. Gains that are reflected 
in and important to this Congress and the Nation.
  A final, but critical element to this battle is the role of President 
Clinton and his Justice Department. The President has made clear and 
reiterated his support of the Voting Rights Act and the creation of 
Voting Rights districts; but his words have rung clear to those of us 
in the battles. I for example, am in the position of relying upon the 
State of Louisiana to defend the Voting Rights Act. This ironic 
position is the result of the Justice Department's failure to intervene 
in the legal battle. Acts of Congress should be defended vigorously by 
the Justice Department, but in this battle they have retreated.
  And, the Justice Department, who urges States to create such voting 
rights districts, is abandoning its authority by failing to defend its 
own actions. Without their intervention, the most important civil 
rights battle of many years, perhaps a generation, is passing them by. 
This injustice at the Justice Department is regrettable.
  I urge my colleagues to support the principles of the Voting Rights 
Act; to speak out strongly against the move to backtrack on voting 
rights progress; And to strongly affirm the majority-minority districts 
called for as a remedy in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Clyburn].
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There are several lessons we must continue to teach ourselves 
whenever the questions of reapportionment arises, questions that are 
fundamental to the democratic form of Government.
  First of all, we must remember that nothing granted under the 
democratic form is ever really permanent; it can be taken away. A 
hundred years ago, the halls of this Congress were well-populated by 
black Congressmen from Southern States, including one of my ancestors, 
and there was the sense that America had become more truly 
representative in the Congress than ever before.
  A few years later, all that had changed, and we had entered a period 
of profound racial segregation and discrimination. I say that to remind 
you that nothing is guaranteed, and that we must measure every action 
in terms of its long-term political implications. Losing seats occupied 
by African-Americans to the reapportionment process in the name of 
whatever legal theory may sound reasonable and harmless just may be the 
first step in a trend with far more drastic and denigrating 
implications.
  Second, I would suggest to you that gerrymandering is a term which 
did not come into use with the advent of black Congresspeople. The use 
of unusually shaped congressional districts is a time-honored political 
activity which goes back as far as this nation itself.
  And, I would suggest, it has had racial implications at least since 
1865, in many, many instances. Creating racial majorities through the 
drawing of district lines is a very fundamental part of the entire 
elective process. It's the means by which fair and equitable balance is 
being created in all legislative bodies in this Nation, and it is one 
which should be defended and utilized in the interest of a truly 
representative Congress.
  Third, let me suggest to you that the geographic shape of a 
congressional district does little to define its actual nature and 
content.
  A legislative district, at whatever level of government, is not a 
territorial boundary.
  It is a district created for the purpose of defining a group of 
people who will participate in an election. As such, it should have a 
cohesion and a sense of values which may have nothing to do with its 
geometric shape, or size I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that 
congressional districts should have some commonality of purpose, 
whether they are in the urban center of big cities or in the farmlands 
of the agricultural states.
  Districts may be bound together by common economic interests, common 
educational purposes, traditional social, and political interests, a 
sense of shared purpose and values which can be transmitted through the 
voice and the votes of an individual Congressperson. There is too much 
isolation in our elective process today, too much special interest as 
expressed through the single office of a single Congressperson.
  We should all be generalists, representing the interests of 
minorities within our districts as well as being sensitive to the will 
of the majority. That has been done in many instances by non-black 
Congresspeople representing black minority districts, and I consider it 
insulting for anyone to imply that the same cannot be done by non-white 
Congresspeople representing white minority districts.
  To redraw lines in the interest of some perceived over-representation 
of a minority racial group or issue is superficial and unreasonable.
  It negates the very real fact that much of what we do has little to 
do with race, and very much to do with the competence of the 
individuals in office and the best interests of the entire Nation.
  Eliminating seats now occupied by African-American Congresspeople 
would be a step back in history, and a very dangerous step, at that. 
This Nation has some very noble ideals which it has expressed in its 
very remarkable Constitution. It is our job to work in every way 
possible to achieve those ideals, and the diversity of this Congress is 
very much a bright and shining example of the U.S. Constitution at its 
best.
  We are often imperfect in the way we achieve our purposes in this 
Nation. A congressional district may not have a size or shape to 
delight the aesthetic interests of its observers. But congressional 
districts are not created for artistic value; they are created for a 
political purpose in a democratic society to serve the purposes of a 
Constitution which represents and protects all people.
  If we are about achieving the greater goal of advancing human values, 
then perhaps we should not be so distressed about the geometric 
correctness or abstract artistic value of a congressional district but 
instead glory in our ability to fashion peaceful and tolerable remedies 
to one of our long standing social ills.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Thompson].
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I join by colleagues 
tonight in identifying and highlighting the redistricting struggle.
  In 1969, I was elected as alderman in my home town of Bolton, MS. 
Notwithstanding that election, there was a challenge that ensued. That 
challenge went to court and one of the profound statements that the 
judge made at the initial hearing, when we moved the trial to Federal 
court, the judge said, ``Well, they have taken it out of my hands.''
  Well, clearly, this struggle for redistricting is one where unless we 
have constitutional guarantees, the Voting Rights Act and a number of 
other things, minorities and women and others will not have the 
protection necessary.
  Mississippi has the largest number of black elected officials than 
any State. This was simply because of the Voting Rights Act and the 
many countless lawsuits that have ensued in protecting those elections. 
Every time we appear to be turning the corner with voting rights, we 
shoot ourselves in the foot.
  As a famous orator once said, Every time we learn the game, they 
change the rules.
  Well, the rules are being changed now in redistricting suits, because 
now African-Americans who had fought hard to get elected now find their 
districts under siege.
  In the spirit of Fannie Lou Hamer, Medgar Evers who gave their lives 
so many of us could serve, I join my colleagues in issuing this call to 
alarm on the injustices being reaped upon the newly created minority 
districts and pray that justice will prevail.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise tonight to speak on the principles of democracy, of 
representative government, of justice, and of fairness.
  In 1894, the question before the Nation was whether freed slaves, 30 
years after emancipation and the 15th amendment, could retain their 
newfound political power in State legislation, city halls, and the 
Halls of Congress, whether reconstruction would strip them of all their 
gains.

                              {time}  1950

  The answer is clear and unequivocal. In 1994 the question before this 
Nation is whether the grandsons and granddaughters of freed slaves, 30 
years after the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act, will 
be able to retain their newfound political power in State legislatures, 
in city halls, and in the Halls of Congress. The answer is not yet 
clear, but if those traitors of democracy, conspirators against 
representative government, assassins of justice, and murderers of 
fairness have their way, the answer will be yes, and once again, 100 
years later.
  Shaw versus Reno is reconstruction revisited. It has taken 100 years 
to get to this point, only to be told that we have come far enough, or 
really, that we have come too far. Let there be no mistake about it, 
Frederick Douglass said it so eloquently, ``Power concedes nothing. It 
never has and it never will''
  In my State of Georgia, African-Americans are 27 percent of our 
population. Due to the insistence of U.S. Justice Department 
interpreting the Voting Rights Act and the persistence of thousands 
upon thousands of African-Americans, we now have 27 percent of our 11-
Member congressional delegation. Where for years the 27 percent were 
neglected in matters of government, in not receiving our fair share of 
the political power, the people of Georgia now have democracy, now have 
representative government, justice, and fairness. Wrongs of 100 years 
are almost made right. Crooked politics of 100 years have almost been 
made straight.
  Yet, today, we stand here, the demagogues of our time, the assassins 
of true democracy, through Shaw versus Reno and its progeny, would turn 
back the hands of time. I implore you, in the name of Crispus Atticus, 
of Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, of Cheney, of 
Schwerner, of Goodman, of Medgar Evers, of Fannie Lou Hamer, of Malcolm 
X, of Charles Hamilton and Thurgood Marshall and John Lewis and Andrew 
Young and Jesse Jackson, and thousands of others, we must continue the 
fight.
  Men may not get all they pay for in life, and God knows we have paid 
the price, but we must certainly pay for all that we get. Let us not 
let them kill justice. Let us not let them destroy democracy. Let us 
not let them turn back the clock.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for holding this 
special order. Tonight, Madam Speaker, I stand with my colleagues in 
the Congressional Black Caucus to speak for fairness and justice. For 
more than 35 years I have opposed efforts that would deny African-
Americans full participation in the political process. These efforts 
have included recent challenges to congressional districts in the 
South.
  I feel strongly that the challenged districts were drawn to meet the 
test of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They were properly drawn, and they 
were fairly drawn.
  People should not forget that there is some history here: Before the 
Voting Rights Act 1965, there was a State-sanctioned conspiracy to keep 
blacks from participating in the political process. Twenty-nine years 
ago, this month, people marched, people were beaten, bullwhipped and 
tear gassed. Some people were shot and even killed for the right to 
participate in the political process.
  Some of our citizens paid the supreme price with their own lives for 
the right to vote. In 1964, three young men gave their lives while 
working to register people to vote near Philadelphia, Mississippi.
  Not too long ago, people had to pay a poll tax or own property to 
vote, or pass a so-called literacy test.
  During the 1960's, there were certain political subdivisions in the 
South where 50 to 80 percent of the population was black, but there was 
not a single black registered voter. The tactics used by whites to keep 
blacks out of the political process ranged from economic retaliation to 
outright murder. In many instances, brutal acts of violence were 
directed against those who tried to register to vote. Black people were 
literally shot down on the Courthouse steps for attempting to register. 
Those few who were allowed to register were harassed, intimidated and 
even beaten when they tried to exercise the right to vote.
  On Sunday, March 7, 1965, in an effort to dramatize the need for 
voting rights legislation, about 600 people attempted to march 50 miles 
from Selma to Montgomery. When we reached the apex of the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge in Selma, we were attacked by State troopers. Scenes from what 
became known as ``Bloody Sunday'' sent shock waves around the Nation 
and the world. There was a sense of righteous indignation.
  Two days later, on March 9, 1965, the marchers gathered in Selma 
again. But we had to turn back to avoid a second bloody encounter.
  President Lyndon B. Johnson went before a joint session of Congress 
on March 15, 1965 to urge Congress to pass a voting rights law. He 
said, ``I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of 
democracy * * * At times history and fate meet at a single time in a 
single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for 
freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at 
Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.''
  Finally, under the protection of the U.S. military, we were able to 
complete our journey from Brown Church in Selma to the State Capitol in 
Montgomery. As a direct result of this effort, the Voting Rights Act 
was passed by the Congress and signed into law on August 6, 1965.
  The Voting Rights Act eliminated discrimination in voting and paved 
the way for a nonviolent revolution across the South. In 1965 there 
were only about 50 black elected officials in the 11 Southern States. 
Today, there are over 6,000.
  The South is a different and better place as a result of the Voting 
Rights Act. Our Nation is a different and better place.
  I stand with my colleagues today as we seek to turn back the 
challenges to the full participation of African-Americans in the 
political process. We are prepared to do what is necessary and morally 
right to preserve the fruits of the voting Rights Act of 1965.
  I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Fields] again for holding this special order.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentleman mentioned the number of 
African Americans that are elected to office today across the southern 
part of our country. Is the gentleman familiar with how many African-
American Members are in the U.S. Senate today?

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Today in the U.S. Senate there is one African 
American.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. How many Americans are in the U.S. Senate, 
total?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. In the Senate we have 100 Members.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. So there is one African-American Member of a 
body of 100, is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. The gentleman is correct. There is only one 
African-American member in a body of 100.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. So before the election of this one African-
American, who I assume is Carol Moseley-Braun whom the gentleman was 
referring to, prior to her election were there any African Americans 
since Reconstruction in the U.S. Senate?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. There was one during a brief period of time in 
the Senate, shortly after Reconstruction, who served from 
Massachusetts, Senator Edward Brooke.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Since Reconstruction we have had two 
Members, Ed Brooke and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Let me ask one other question. How many 
Members are there in the U.S. Congress? What is the total membership of 
the U.S. Congress?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. In the House of Representatives, there are 435 
Members.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Of the 435, how many of those Members are 
African Americans?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. We have today 39 African-American Members of 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. So, of the 535 Members of the U.S. Congress, 
which would include the House and the Senate, is the gentleman telling 
me there are only 40 African-American Members in the entire U.S. 
Congress today?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I am saying to my colleague, the gentleman from 
the State of Louisiana, today in the Congress the total membership of 
African Americans is only 40, 39 in the House and one in the Senate.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts. [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding to me and his leadership and that of his colleagues in putting 
this together. I think it is a shameful thing that one of the best 
things we have been able to do as a government in dealing with the 
single greatest problem in this country is now under assault, and 
clearly the gravest problem that America has faced from its beginning 
has been the systematic mistreatment at the outset of African 
Americans, and the lingering heritage of that mistreatment.
  This is a nation that began with slavery as part of its institution, 
unfortunately recognized in the Constitution. The Constitution is a 
great document in many ways, but as Thurgood Marshall pointed out, it 
was flawed in some respects, and its embrace of slavery is one of 
those.
  We struggled throughout our history to try to overcome that. We have 
made progress, but clearly we have a long way to go. No single act did 
more to empower people to fight against the terrible effects of racism 
than the Voting Rights Act, because no single act did more to give 
people the ability to defend themselves.
  The Voting Rights Act was an extraordinarily important turning point 
in our democracy. At first people were skeptical about it, but it has 
gained in strength.
  The tragedy, Madam Speaker, is that today as we are just beginning to 
see the full effects of the Voting Rights Act, opponents of true 
democracy are trying to cut it off, and that must not be allowed.
  One argument we get is that some of the congressional districts 
represented by our African American colleagues are shaped oddly, as was 
pointed out by previous speakers. Political manipulation of district 
lines for various purposes has not only been part of our history 
forever, it is inherent in the process. My own district, Madam Speaker, 
is very oddly shaped. No logic, no geometry would have produced it. It 
clearly shows various political factors. In my case it was a desire to 
help one Member, a desire to hurt another Member. All of the districts 
of Massachusetts are rather oddly shaped. But because there was no 
explicit racial motive, that is to be OK.
  In other words, trying to draw districts so that the most under-
represented group in America historically, and the most abused group, 
African- Americans, trying to draw districts so that we can undo the 
under-representation, that is now to be treated as illegitimate. But 
manipulating districts, wiggling the lines, playing politics with the 
numbers, as long as that is not being done to overcome racial 
injustice, that is OK.
  We stand justice and democracy absolutely on its head by that 
doctrine. We have a Supreme Court majority, a narrow one in many ways, 
which says that political manipulation in the drawing of districts is 
OK for just about any purpose except overcoming this Nation's legacy of 
racism, that the Voting Rights Act, because it has been working as 
intended, therefore we have to interfere with it.
  And let us not ignore the hypocrisy of some, and they were largely on 
the Republican side, who saw in the Voting Rights Act a chance to 
undercut Democratic majorities, and they felt that they could draw 
these lines in a way that might enhance African-American membership by 
cutting back on other Democratic membership. Only after that did not 
work out as planned did they then turn around and remove their support. 
We have the spectacle of people who in some cases, for instance in the 
State of North Carolina where the Justice Department insisted that the 
State of North Carolina draw a second district to represent African-
Americans, and they were right to do that, but when it did not turn out 
politically the way they expected, the same political forces that 
pushed for it are now trying to undercut it.
  There is nothing undemocratic, nothing unconstitutional, nothing 
illogical about saying that we ought to draw district lines to reduce 
the under-representation of African-Americans in this country. And as 
the colloquy between my friends from Louisiana and Georgia just pointed 
out, even today there is less than the numerical representation that we 
would get simply by doing things randomly.
  Let me add that I feel almost as threatened as my colleagues by this. 
Obviously they, as African-Americans and representatives of African-
American districts in many cases, are most directly threatened.
  But I, as someone who wants to see my country reach the goals of 
racial justice, reach the goal of true democracy, deal with this 
terrible historical unfairness that has been so much a part of our 
problem, I also feel threatened by it. I have seen this institution 
over 14 years enriched by the newer Members who have come in. I have 
seen this institution enhanced by the fact we now more nearly 
adequately represent America in all of its diversity. I do not want to 
see it go back.
  I think we benefit from the fact that America now is more nearly 
represented in the best sense of the word in this chamber. I do not 
want to go back to a period when there was an artificial, almost 
unanimity in this place.
  The Voting Rights Act is working as it ought to work, and attacks on 
it would seek to throw back some of the greatest progress America has 
made in dealing with our greatest problem, our insidious attacks on 
democracy, and must be resisted.
  I am very pleased that the gentleman from Louisiana has given those 
of us who have lived through this the chance to see it. I happened to 
have been in Mississippi in the summer of 1964 when democracy was a 
sham for a very substantial percentage of the people. And I have seen 
America evolve in a better direction. I have been heartened by that 
progress. I feel threatened by this attack on it, and I promise to work 
side by side with my colleagues in preserving and protecting the gains 
that we have made.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, and I really appreciate his comments.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my very able colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Florida, [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, the founders of this Nation in 
the Constitution provided that the Districts composing the House of 
Representatives shall be redrawn at least after every decennial census.
  This provision was based upon their observation of the British system 
at the time. The British system provided for no systematic redrawing of 
parliamentary districts. Thus districts were controlled by the 
nobility. The urban areas were effectively disenfranchised. The term 
``rotten borough'' is of British derivation. This was a parliamentary 
district of few people controlled by the local lord.
  The founders rejected the British system, but provided for Congress 
to pass laws governing the process subject to the dictates of the 
Constitution. When the States, over time, reverted to the British 
practice of vastly unequal population, the Supreme Court properly 
stepped in with the decision of Baker versus Carr and subsequent 
elaborations. This was appropriate and consistent.
  The practice of drawing Districts for the House of Representatives by 
the States has been left with great discretion within limited 
parameters.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to correct years of abuses 
through the disenfranchisement of classes of citizens of the United 
States. It and its subsequent amendments sought to rectify decades of 
active efforts to disenfranchise minority groups within the United 
States, primarily African-Americans, but also those others who have 
suffered disenfranchisement in the political process. I remember poll 
taxes, literacy tests, colored drinking water. I remember Booker T., 
W.E.B. Dubois, I remember Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King, and 
Mary McCloud Bethune.
  One fact seems to be overlooked in this debate. The latest Voting 
Rights Act amendments were passed by a bipartisan majority of the 
Congress after extensive factfinding. It was accomplished with the full 
scrutiny of the American people. It sought the empowerment of those 
left out of the political process. Those who challenge the Voting 
Rights Act, do they want to still our voices in the fight for equal 
rights for all, native American women, homeless, gay rights, blacks, 
Hispanics?
  The underlying theory of the amendments was rooted in the 
Constitution. Let all parts of America be represented in one body, the 
House of Representatives, the people's House. The result of that 
legislation is a House of Representatives that looks more like America 
than any of its 102 predecessors. This is what the writers of the 
Constitution intended.
  Now we have the truly bizarre decision by the Supreme Court in the 
North Carolina case which stands contrary to history and the 
Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is under siege by those who want to 
turn back the clock--to the days when African-Americans were not 
allowed to vote. We say: Never again shall we return to those days. 
Many decades ago Irish-Americans fought for the design of districts 
they could dominate and the Supreme Court was silent. Italian-Americans 
fought for districts they could dominate, and the Supreme Court was 
silent. Many of the lines drawn to accomplish this purpose were 
somewhat unusual. Rural interests even after Baker versus Carr 
successfully sought districts they could dominate. There are suburban 
districts, conservative districts, liberal districts, Polish districts, 
Appalachian districts, German districts, Italian districts, Irish 
districts, military base districts, university districts, urban 
districts, sugar districts, fishing districts, tobacco districts, wheat 
districts, logging districts, rich districts, poor districts and too 
many others to name here. In many of these cases the purpose was to 
empower a distinct group by a State legislature.
  The Congress found, and the President agreed, that there were 
distinct groups within the United States who were not being empowered 
by state legislatures. So under the Constitution is sought to empower 
these groups after extensive fact-finding. This is what Congress is 
supposed to do.
  After the 1990 redistricting and the 1992 election, the results are 
in. The House of Representatives looks more like America than at any 
previous time in its history.
  Today this success is threatened by a truly bizarre decision by the 
Supreme Court. It thinks congressional district shapes should conform 
to some unstated standard of beauty. Its standard of beauty for 
congressional districts is not definitive.
  My standard of beauty is the results as defined by the membership of 
the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives reflects the 
diversity of America more today than at any time previously in its 
history.
  A decade ago Congress sought to correct 200 years of discrimination 
and fulfill the intent of the writers of the Constitution. They 
succeeded.
  All Americans must persuade the Supreme Court of their folly.
  Let the people's House look like the people.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Hilliard], my very able colleague.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Madam Speaker, in the days of legalized Jim Crow laws 
when segregation reigned supreme, as hope within the African-American 
community was dim, the only government institution which stood up for 
the rights of our people was the Supreme Court.
  Today it is unfortunate for the sake of democracy that our High Court 
is straying from our Nation's democratic principles, the principles of 
fair play and equal representation which are embodied in our 
Constitution. Madam Speaker, it seems to be lacking in the Shaw versus 
Reno opinion.
  Our Court must realize that democracy must be inclusive and not 
exclusive in terms of the doctrines of fairness which should be 
employed. The majority opinion in Shaw versus Reno is clearly wrong.
  I do not understand nor appreciate Justice Clarence Thomas' vote and 
Justice O'Connor's vote in that decision.
  It is ridiculous, but Justice O'Connor wrote, ``Our political system 
today is a system in which race no longer matters.'' She is wrong. 
Racial problems still confront many of us.
  One only needs to pick up the newspapers or turn on the TV to realize 
this sad fact. Those of us who are attorneys need to remind the High 
Court that the 1965 Voting Rights Act is still on the books, and it is 
this Supreme Court's duty to affirmatively support it, preserve it, and 
enhance it.
  The 1965 Voting Rights Act was established because President Lyndon 
Johnson realized that those who held the power of politics in the South 
did not and would not share this power with blacks. Their ploy was to 
dilute the black vote with at-large, rather than district, elections. 
The same is true today.
  Justice Blackmun stated the case best. He wrote,

       The conscious use of race in redistricting does not violate 
     the equal protection clause unless the plan overtly denies a 
     particular group equal access to the political process.

  All blacks were disenfranchised in the South before the Voting Rights 
Act was passed. We must stop this one-up brinkmanship judicial 
philosophy in which the right-wing element of this Court is attempting 
to undo all the great democratic judicial strides we have made since 
the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education decision.
  There are those who in 1994 would reaffirm Plessey versus Ferguson 
decision of 1896 which legalized segregation. Those like Sandra 
O'Connor and those like Clarence Thomas are looking at America in the 
year 3001 which will be the melted pot America and not the year of 1994 
which is the melting-pot America, and there is a difference. Those who 
deny that there is a difference, those who deny that there is a racial 
problem are not fit to judicially preside and deal with the 
discrimination in this land at this time.

  Madam Speaker, if we are to have a democracy which is true, it must 
be culturally diverse and must be inclusive. We have had representation 
without districts during the period of slavery and during the period of 
segregation, and it remained that way because those who represent all 
discriminated; those who represented blacks and whites in majority 
districts that were white voted the voice of the majority constituency. 
They voted the discriminatory views of their majority constituents.
  Shaw versus Reno must go. Districts must be enforced and must be had 
if we are to preserve democracy.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], 
the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, my good friend.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. My 
thanks to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], and other members 
of the Caucus and, quite frankly, other Members of this body who have, 
on this occasion and on previous occasions taken to this floor and 
raised a higher question to our Nation and to our Nation's people about 
the inequalities that have existed in the past but, more importantly, 
the hypocrisies that too often are with us in the present.
  Clearly, one of the greatest hypocrisies is the notion that we can 
somehow have equal voting rights and equal protection under the law as 
it pertains to the right to vote while at the same time denying in 
every legal way we can the right of people to duly elect 
Representatives in districts that are drawn to reflect the demographics 
of the State in such a way that we maximize participation.
  Madam Speaker, the struggle for African-American voting rights has 
been a dynamic one, ranging from periods of complete disenfranchisement 
and obstruction to varying degrees of participation in the political 
process.
  The vote and its correlated benefit--inclusion in the political 
process--has come to symbolize the principal resource needed to improve 
the social status of the African-American community.
  Noted political scientist William R. Keech stated that ``the right to 
vote warrants extensive attention from observers of the American 
political process because one, it is perhaps the most widely 
distributed political resource in the country; two, it is the 
determining factor in a Democratic form of government, for in the end, 
most decisions rate on votes; and three, it is conduit through which 
popular sentiments are translated into governmental decision.''
  African-American access to the right to vote--and therefore, the 
political process--has been acquired and protected through the passage 
of constitutional amendments such as the 15th amendment in 1870, 
Federal legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and numerous 
judicial interpretations spanning the 19th and 20th centuries.
  Now, comes the Supreme Court decision in Shaw v. Reno which states, 
among other things, that the shape of a district is more important than 
the people represented. Furthermore, the Supreme Court espoused 
districting principles that are not required by the Constitution, such 
as compactness, and contiguity.
  These principles are important now because at issue is African-
American participation in the political process. Therefore, I must ask 
the question posed by the dissenting opinion of Justice Blackmun: why 
is an otherwise permissible redistricting to benefit an 
underrepresented minority group impermissible when the minority group 
is defined by its race. If it is permissible to draw boundaries to 
provide adequate representation for others as we have done throughout 
our history, it necessarily follows that it is permissible to do the 
same thing for members of the very minority group whose history in the 
United States gave birth to the equal protection clause.
  Thus the Congressional Black Caucus rises today to raise this issue 
before all who would listen, to argue that the court has been misguided 
in its interpretation and threatens to set back this Nation in a very 
negative manner, in the matter of equal representation and voting 
rights.
  We rise today to begin this debate in hopes that it will begin over 
and over again throughout this country, every city, every State, the 
Nation, every hamlet where people believe as we all do that in order 
for America to be the Nation we should be, we must be consistent in our 
principles, profound with our respect for the law, and unceasingly 
committed in our desire to make sure that all people have equal 
representation.
  I believe also, as many others have stated, that as people become 
familiar with this issue and begin to look at it, they see something 
that the Supreme Court could not see, they see the beauty of the 
American dream and how that beauty can be reflected if we really move 
to protect the rights, the voting rights of all people.
  So we have gathered here in this evening under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] to say, as we would say at every 
opportunity we will get, that we need in this battle all Americans of 
good will who believe that this issue, as it must be, is a priority 
before our Government.
  We call upon the administration and all of the related agencies, we 
call indeed on the court who have put us in this position, and we call 
on Members of the House and the Senate to join us in this struggle, 
recognizing that we must be able to create a just society, a just 
society where justice is supreme ruler and law becomes but its 
instrument, where freedom is the dominant creed and order by its 
practice and equity is the common practice that we offer one another in 
fraternity, common brotherhood and sisterhood that binds us.
  This issue goes to the heart of our Nation being fair in its 
treatment to the voting rights that are guaranteed under the 
Constitution to all its citizens.
  We ask and we plead to those of good will to join us in 
this struggle, to recognize, if they will, as we do the simple lessons 
of history and what happened in the late 1860's; the fact that minority 
groups have been historically underrepresented in this body and 
sometimes historically excluded; to remember the words of the late 
Representative, Mr. White, the last African-American to serve in this 
country at the end of the last century, who addressed this body in 1901 
on his way out, into retirement, leaving behind a House of 
Representatives that was without Hispanic, without black 
representation; that we too would rise like phoenixes again, and bring 
before this Nation a very basic challenge, the challenge to define 
itself by its commitment to be just and equal.
  Yet, 28 or 29 years passed before there was another minority to serve 
in this body. We have been blessed over the years through the good will 
of African-Americans, white Americans, and others who have recognized 
that representation ought not be colored. We have been blessed to see 
our numbers grow.
  Those numbers threaten to be severely diminished if we do not turn 
back this dastardly decision handed down by the courts.
  So, again, my thanks to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and 
others for engaging in this debate tonight. We encourage Members of 
this House to join us again and again as we continue to press this 
issue, and we urge that the leadership of the House, as well, 
understand the way we are committed to this and the passion that we 
bring to it, because this is really about leadership and really about 
the direction of our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the time to the gentleman from Louisiana, 
who has been very gracious in yielding.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss a matter of great 
importance in this House. In recent months a series of challenges have 
been launched against some of my colleagues and the shape of their 
congressional districts. These districts, designed to right historical 
wrongs and to usher in an era of political inclusion have come under 
attack.
  It is often said that history repeats itself. With regard to the 
current debate on reapportionment and challenge to majority minority 
districts, we are beginning to see a repeat of American history's more 
sour moments.
  For more than 100 years, African-American voters in this country 
could not vote, let alone have representation in local, State, or 
national government. Following the war to unite this country, action 
was taken to right some of the past wrongs and inequities suffered by 
the minority population of this country. However, while these efforts 
were made with great promise and with good intention, they ultimately 
failed under a series of repeated attacks by those conservative forces 
who did not have the dream of inclusion. Things like jim crow, poll 
tax, literacy test, and other repressive mechanisms were used to kill 
any hope of equal representation.
  Madam Speaker, until the Shaw versus Reno decision the Supreme Court 
had never recognized any Federal right to challenge a district solely 
on the grounds of its unusual shape. Until this particular case the 
courts had accepted oddly shaped or drawn districts for partisan 
reasons, to protect incumbents, to favor one jurisdiction over another 
or even to discriminate against minorities. Why then apply a stricter 
standard at this time to districts with African-American and Hispanic 
majorities that have been drawn to overcome the past practices of 
exclusion and racism?
  Madam Speaker, throwing out districts based on this unprecedented 
standard would only reinforce a tyranny that the Voting Rights Act has 
overcome, and we must resist the efforts to turn the clock back.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for 
his hard work in this effort.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott] and at this time I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the great State of North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Speaker, I am glad to join with my colleagues to 
address the important issue of redistricting. Let me first thank the 
co-chairs of the Congressional Black Caucus redistricting task force, 
the gentlemen from Louisiana [Mr. Fields and Mr. Jefferson] for their 
leadership on this important issue.
  It is necessary that we all understand that redrawing district lines 
for representation is not new. District lines are drawn for the purpose 
of making sure representation is fair and afforded to all citizens. 
This has always been the intent of district lines. In and of itself 
district lines are race neutral. Congressional district lines which now 
are the center of court hearings in 4 Southern States are being 
woefully described in terms other than for what they truly represent.
  We have seen over the past several years increased diversity of the 
city councils, boards of county commissioners, State legislatures, 
judicial appointments and the Congress as a direct result of district 
representation. This increased representation by blacks and other 
ethnic minorities has strengthened the true meaning of representative 
government. Because of this, we have witnessed an active increase in 
government at all levels. People are viewing government as not an 
abstract unrelated entity but as an institution that is responsive and 
sensitive to the needs of the people. There is an increased desire to 
want to serve and be a part of the democratic process. All of this is 
happening because of the renewed hope in government caused by a more 
representative government of the people.
  Any time the freedom and right of representation is challenged, there 
is the potential for unrest and political disempowerment. The court 
suit that challenges the district lines in each of the States is a 
severe threat to the many political gains that this Nation has 
experienced since Reconstruction. We have to be more vigilant and 
watchful to make sure that the hands of political disempowerment are 
returned to the dark history of America's past. A history that is 
contradictory to the rights of all people to participate in the 
representation process should be supportive of the basic fundamental 
elements of democracy. The kind of democracy which guarantees fairness 
for all segments of the community to be actively included in the 
governance process.
  The results of these court hearings could be devastating to all that 
has been accomplished. It would even suggest that the Voting Rights Act 
is no longer valid in its intent to ensure balance in the electoral 
process. History bares the record clearly for us all. In my State of 
North Carolina a black had not been elected to Congress in over 90 
years. District lines were quite often drawn to minimize the strength 
of minority voting.
  It is ironic that the argument seems to suggest that these districts 
are racially gerrymandered or the voting influences of whites in 
majority minority districts are now diminished. Most astonishing is the 
notion that the interest of whites cannot be represented by 
representatives of majority minority districts. This is absurd and 
utterly racist. It is shamefully disgraceful to even suggest that good 
representation is based upon one's skin color. We cannot let the 
naysayers who have no interest in having representative democracy be 
successful in reversing progressive electoral gains since 
Reconstruction.
  We cannot let history repeat itself with any retrenchment that might 
wipe out the advancement which is good for all of America. The argument 
that any citizen is injured because of majority minority districting 
just will not hold up in any form or fashion.
  It is time for all Americans to register their concerns that the 
progress we have made as a Nation stands at risk by a few who have no 
interest or concern for a representative democracy.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Fields]. I would like to just underline a few of the statements that 
have been made by my colleagues.
  First, Madam Speaker, it is very important to understand that the 
drawing of strange-shaped district lines, odd-shaped districts, whether 
we are talking about congressional districts, or State senatorial 
districts, assembly districts, city council districts; the drawing of 
odd-shaped districts has gone on for as long as there has been a 
Republic, and right now there are very strangely shaped districts and 
odd-shaped districts all across America that have nothing to do with 
voting rights. They were no part of the voting rights process. So why 
do we suddenly have a ruling from the Supreme Court which allows court 
suits to be brought on the basis of the shape of the district?
  Never before in the history of the country have we had this kind of 
ruling, Madam Speaker. In fact, the Supreme Court has always affirmed 
the right of State legislatures to draw districts as long as they are 
compact and contiguous, and the definition of that will certainly 
stretch to the very limits, as one can see if we would take some of the 
very odd-shaped districts across the Nation that have nothing to do 
with voting rights.
  Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act was an attempt to make an 
adjustment. It was an attempt to do the least that could be done for 
200 years of slavery, 200 years of free labor, 200 years of degradation 
and another 100 years of second-class citizenship. We have not repaid 
the debt owed to the enslaved masses of African-Americans. We have not 
begun to repay that debt. We have made a few adjustments.
  Madam Speaker, this Voting Rights Act was one of those adjustments to 
allow us to participate in the political process. Now we want to take 
that away, and we argue that we want some kind of pure democracy with 
pure-shaped districts. Those who believe in pure democracy should go 
back and examine the Constitution and the process which established our 
Constitution.
  One of the most undemocratic bodies in the world is the U.S. Senate 
because the U.S. Senate is based on a compromise, an adjustment, that 
was made. Every State, regardless of the size of the State physically, 
regardless of the population of the State, every State in the U.S. 
Senate has two votes. Is that one man, one vote representation?

  And in the U.S. Senate they have filibuster rules where they can have 
40 people, the representatives of 20 States, that can stop any process 
from going forward with a filibuster. Is that democracy?
  As my colleagues know, we have made adjustments. It is a compromise 
that nobody seeks to unravel. Compromises and adjustments are necessary 
to build just societies. The Voting Rights Act is a compromise which is 
the least that can be done to correct a gross injustice to people of 
African descent brought here as slaves.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for 
having yielded to me.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens] for his eloquent speech about the Voting Rights 
Act, and at this time, Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of the time 
to the great and distinguished gentleman from the great State of North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. WATT. I will be powerful in my 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for 
having yielded the balance of the time to me.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. DORNAN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a happy 
suggestion, my special order starts next. If the gentleman would like 
to pace his remarks to take 2 or 3 minutes from the beginning of mine, 
so he can give it some full thought, I will be glad to yield to him at 
the beginning of my special order.
  Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman so much for his courtesy, because I 
did want to take a little bit more than 30 seconds to address this 
issue.
  I wanted to first thank all of my colleagues who have been here this 
evening to express their position on this important matter. I suppose I 
have a special mission here, because it is North Carolina and my 
congressional district which is the subject of Shaw versus Reno.
  I stand here as one of two African-American Members of Congress from 
the State of North Carolina, the first African-American Members of 
Congress elected from the State of North Carolina in this century.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I am always amazed and puzzled by those 
Americans who argue persuasively and passionately on behalf of equal 
treatment for blacks while simultaneously supporting measures to deny 
the same people the opportunity for achieving equality. The issue at 
hand, namely, the drawing of race-based congressional districts, is a 
perfect example.
  In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that drawing 
congressional districts for the purpose of giving blacks an opportunity 
to be elected, dilutes the votes of white citizens. In the case of Shaw 
versus Reno, the high court discounted the fact that until the drawing 
of two congressional districts with a majority of black voters, North 
Carolina had not elected a black Member to Congress since 1901. The 
high court ignored the fact that for over 90 years a State with 35 
percent black population had deliberately created white race-based 
districts which diluted the voting strength of black citizens.
  Madam Speaker, this is the hypocrisy of which I speak when describing 
those Americans who creatively and passionately argue on behalf of 
equal treatment while simultaneously denying blacks the vehicle for 
equal opportunity.
  The alternative to drawing race-based congressional districts thus 
making it possible for blacks to be elected, is to draw race-based 
districts that make it impossible for blacks to be elected.
  North Carolina is not an isolated case where black people have been 
denied the right of legitimate representation. Until recently, every 
State in the union drew legislative districts at the local, State and 
congressional levels that were purposely designed to deny blacks fair 
representation. New York, Chicago, and Cleveland were no different from 
Atlanta, Birmingham, and Memphis. From one end of this country to the 
other, North, South, East, and West wherever large numbers of blacks 
resided, districts were drawn in these cities to dilute the black vote.
  From the turn of this century until the election of Oscar Depriest to 
Congress in 1928, being black in America meant suffering ``taxation 
without representation.'' This condition existed until just a few years 
ago.
  Black representation, at all levels of government, was sparse indeed.
  The self-described liberal State of New York did not elect its first 
black to the State assembly until 1916, 53 years after the emancipation 
proclamation. California did not elect its first black to the State 
assembly until 1918 and Missouri followed suit in 1920. Thirty-six 
years later in 1956, the great State of Illinois, the land of Abraham 
Lincoln, elected its first black to the State legislature.
  At the time of Depriest's election, major industrial cities with 
large concentrations of black residents like Memphis, Atlanta, New 
York, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Little Rock, Charleston, Charlotte, 
Richmond, New Orleans, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Philadelphia, 
Boston, Buffalo, Savannah, Birmingham, and Detroit had no elected black 
officials.
  The cities of New York and St. Louis did not elect their first blacks 
to their city councils until 1914 and 1943 respectively. Los Angeles 
did not elect its first black city councilman until 1963. It would be 
17 years after Depriest's election before another black was elected to 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and not until 1966 before the first 
black in the 20th century was elected to the U.S. Senate.
  Three events occurred that now make it possible for 39 blacks to sit 
in this House of Representatives and one in the United States Senate. 
First, the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by Congress enabled 
blacks to register and vote in large numbers throughout the Southern 
States. Prior to this time, chicanery, trickery, fraud, intimidation, 
gerrymandering, and the purging of registration rolls were common 
techniques capriciously employed to deny black people the opportunity 
to vote and to serve in elective office. For over 100 years, poll 
taxes, literacy tests, all white primaries, threats of bodily harm and 
murder kept 95 percent of the black populace from registering and 
voting.
  Second, the 1964 Supreme Court ``one man, one vote'' ruling required 
the redrawing of legislative districts at all levels of elective 
government, ensuring equal weight to each individual vote cast. Some 
States had congressional districts as large as 900,000 and others had 
districts as small as 180,000. This ratio meant that one vote in one 
district was equal to five in the other. This inequitable arrangement 
was used extensively to keep blacks from having too much voting power 
in a particular district.

  Third, the Federal court decision that rendered as unconstitutional 
the gerrymandering of districts to diminish the importance of minority 
voters, played an important role in the dramatic increase in black 
elected officials in every sector of the country.
  Prior to these legislative and judicial decisions, most State laws 
failed to give adequate protection to the rights of black voters. State 
officials either overtly sanctioned this injustice or gave tacit 
approval to those who flagrantly disregarded the rights of their 
minority citizens. Scandalously, these political entities were 
permitted by the Federal Government to operate with impunity.
  Madam Speaker, beginning in 1876, black voters were systematically 
reduced to noncitizens by the denial of their right to fully and freely 
participate in the political process. They were almost totally purged 
from voter lists in the 11 Southern States: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
  This diminution of black political power eventually resulted in the 
virtual disfranchisement of 90 percent of the black populace. Within 20 
years after 1876, eight States enacted devastating literacy tests as a 
requirement for blacks to register and vote. By requiring black folk to 
read, understand and interpret any section of the State constitution, 
Mississippi was able to reduce the number of qualified black voters 
from over 235,000 to 5,300. The situation was identical in Alabama 
where the number of black voters was reduced from 187,000 to 3,000.
  In some communities prominent black educators and other professionals 
never passed the tests. Blacks with Ph.D.'s were denied the right to 
register because they were unable to give a satisfactory response to 
such obtuse and irrelevant questions as ``how many bubbles are in a bar 
of soap?''
  Now enters the Supreme Court, a majority of whom were appointed by 
ultra conservative ideologues Presidents Reagan and Bush, issuing an 
opinion implying that blacks who constitute 10 percent of the Nation's 
population and less than 2 percent of the total elected officials in 
the country have made too much progress. Shamefully, Clarence Thomas, 
the Negro representative on the Supreme Court, voted in Shaw versus 
Reno, with the majority in this asinine 5 to 4 decision. His vote has 
seriously jeopardized the future of a viable, black presence among 
elected officials.
  Of course, his action was consistent with his prior positions 
involving the rights of black citizens when he was Chairman of the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Additionally, in his very 
first case as a Supreme Court Justice, Thomas displayed his contempt 
for the Voting Rights Act. In a critical decision interpreting the act, 
the court adopted a restrictive view of the law and rejected arguments 
presented by the Justice Department on behalf of black elected 
officials in two Alabama counties. The two, after being elected, were 
stripped of the budgetary authority traditionally and customarily 
accompanying the positions by the all white county board. Judge Thomas 
voted with the 6-to-3 majority in sanctioning the right of districts 
under the Voting Rights Act to change laws, rules and regulations 
without prior approval of the Department of Justice.
  Madam Speaker, if blacks are to unshackle the chains of bondage that 
bind us to a status of economic deprivation, decent people must counter 
the warped mentalities of those misfits in society whose penchants for 
racial fairness is flawed beyond redemption. The arrogance or the 
ignorance of the Clarence Thomases and the Sandra Day O'Connors must 
not go unchallenged. This body should make it clear to Justice O'Connor 
who wrote the majority opinion that black people have a basic right not 
only to participate in the affairs of government but also to govern. 
Justice O'Connor attacked the concept of districts being drawn on the 
basis of race, saying ``racial classifications of any sort pose the 
risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, held by 
too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged 
by the color of their skin.'' Where has she been all these years?
  Madam Speaker, Justice O'Connor makes my case when I state that I am 
amazed and puzzled by some Americans who argue persuasively and 
passionately on behalf of equal treatment for blacks while 
simultaneously supporting measures to deny us the opportunity to 
compete.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, it is with grave concern 
that I address the House today and it is with deep disappointment that 
I have to. I join my colleagues in alarm at the June 1993 U.S. Supreme 
Court decision which challenged the constitutionality of congressional 
districts drawn after the 1990 census to encourage the election of 
minorities to the U.S. House of Representatives.
  We can never be reminded too often that the 15th amendment to the 
Constitution guaranteed all citizens the right to vote, regardless of 
race, color or ``previous condition of servitude.'' We can also never 
be reminded too often that many States and localities across this 
country imposed obstacles to registration and voting that diluted the 
impact of minorities' votes or even prevented some people from voting 
at all. We cannot forget those egregious examples like the poll tax or 
tests as prerequisites to voting. We cannot forget the machines that 
ran the system from the back rooms and board rooms.
  Our courts have long recognized that this Nation's long and 
deplorable history of racial and other discrimination justify remedial 
actions. While I will not try to debate the legal issues at stake, I do 
want to note that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark law, and 
still today it provides minorities the legal tools to challenge 
discriminatory practices. It is a precious law that has brought 
profound results.
  The numbers speak for themselves. Before the Voting Rights Act was 
enacted in 1965, there were four African Americans in the House of 
Representatives. After the 1970 redistricting, the number tripled to 
13. Following the 1980 redistricting, the number of African Americans 
grew to 19. In the last Congress, the 102d, there were 27 African 
Americans. With the 1990 redistricting, there are 39, the highest 
number in this body's history. I must note, however, that at 39, 
African Americans, who constitute almost 15 percent of the Nation's 
population, are only 9 percent of total representatives.
  I should note also that we have welcomed to this House 19 Latino 
Representatives and 7 Asian, the highest number ever.

  The goal of the civil rights movement, and indeed of our 
Constitution, is to have a truly color-blind, interracial democracy. 
The problem with the Supreme Court decision is that it does not 
recognize that we are not there yet. Looking at the composition of the 
House and its power structure, it does not take long to see that 
remedial steps are still warranted. Our laws must continue to recognize 
the long history of systemic discrimination against minorities in order 
to open doors to their full participation in government.
  It is a history that many would like to forget, but it is a history 
that we cannot forget.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I come before you 
on this day with an issue of profound importance. It is an issue which 
threatens the most basic principle of democracy, and democratic 
freedom--the principle of one man, one vote.
  The historic struggle of black Americans to gain the right to vote 
spanned two centuries, and culminated with the passage of the 1965 
Voting Rights Act.
  Consequently, the number of black elected officials has increased 
exponentially. And while black electoral representation is 
extraordinary when compared to any time before the 1970's, our numbers 
still represent less than 2 percent of all elected officials 
nationwide.
  Since the mid-1960's, black Americans have constituted a significant 
portion of the democratic constituency now representing between 20 to 
25 percent of the entire democratic base. Our current administration 
received more than 87 percent of the black vote.
  Retaining the voting rights act has often been threatened or impeded 
by so-called American tradition, law, or by such extralegal practices 
as fraud, intimidation, and violence by members of the community at 
large.
  Madam Speaker, a number of forces have combined to once again 
challenge not only the letter, but the spirit of one of the most 
significant pieces of legislation in the history of this great body, 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  Last night the very powerful movie, ``Schindler's List,'' won most 
every Academy Award for which it was nominated, including best picture 
for 1993. This incredible movie highlights one of the many stories of 
heroism surrounding the Jewish Holocaust under Nazi Germany.
  The message surrounding the making of this movie, and others like it, 
is ``never again.'' ``Never again will this kind of atrocity be 
tolerated.'' Madam Speaker, it is the overwhelming declaration of black 
Americans throughout this Nation, both Democrat and Republican, from 
Texas to New York to North Carolina, that never again will any law, 
tradition, or other impediment, be allowed to interfere with, dilute, 
or otherwise undermine the full and complete enfranchisement of black 
Americans.
  Never again will black Americans sit by while their communities are 
carved up by highways and reservoirs in order to dilute their voting 
strength, or electoral potential.
  There are some who ask, why is it essential that there be blacks in 
Congress? To that, I would like to respond with this simple 
illustration:
  Imagine a university classroom, where the day's discussion turns to 
race relations. Imagine if in that classroom, there are no blacks, no 
Jews, no Hispanics; imagine even that there are no women, only males.
  Imagine a Congress where only one point of view is represented. Mr. 
Chairman, that is precisely the kind of presence which threatens to 
replace this great body today.
  I urge your support, and that of all my colleagues, both Democrat and 
Republican, in defending the voting rights of black Americans, from 
Texas to Louisiana to California.
  Finally, for those Members, and those groups who believe this is only 
a black problem, I would remind you of the words of the great Christian 
scholar, Martin Neimoller:

       When they came for the Jews, I didn't raise my hands, 
     because I wasn't a Jew; when they came for the trade 
     unionists, I didn't raise my hands, because I wasn't one of 
     them; and then they came for me--but there was no one left.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

                          ____________________