[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]

 
                       MORE ON THE CLINTON YEARS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.


                  1965 voting rights act under attack

  Mr. DORNAN. Madam Speaker, I would be glad to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, if I can get in a 
commercial first.
  I heard one of the others say they had been in Mississippi 
registering people to vote at some risk of life and limb in the summer 
of 1964. I was also there then, having marched with the Rev. Martin 
Luther King, Sr. I think all of your remarks are very important 
tonight.
  The commercial part is the following. While I was down there 
registering people, I admit, honestly, that I was telling all the good 
people of Alabama and Mississippi when they asked what party do you 
think I should register in, I said it is up to you, but Lincoln was the 
gentleman who freed the American slaves, and he is a Republican. And I 
think I registered a few Republicans. I do not know if it stuck. But I 
will tell you one way to solve this reapportionment problem, and I mean 
this from the bottom of my heart.
  I think that the African-American families across this country will 
not have the full impact they deserve until they are involved in both 
parties in big numbers. You should encourage those in your community 
who are more inclined to be of a conservative bend in life to become 
Republicans.
  Of the 39 African-Americans in this Congress, I wish we had not just 
one on my side of the aisle, but instead 38 or 40 or 50, to match the 
same number on your side of the aisle.
  Please, take more than the 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding part of 
his time to me and acknowledge his commercial, and remind him that 
Lincoln was of the party of the people at that time, at the risk of 
having him reclaim his time. I will not get into a debate about that.
  Madam Speaker, I would say that I stand here tonight in the shadow of 
a lot of history, part of which I have already alluded to, as only one 
of two black Representatives from North Carolina in this century.
  Recalling the shadow cast by George H. White, the last African-
American Representative from North Carolina, in his farewell speech of 
January 29, 1901, which still casts a shadow, even today, George H. 
White rose on the floor of the House on that occasion to speak on an 
agriculture bill. Unrestricted by the rules by which are governed 
today, he spent approximately 2 hours talking about the fact that black 
people had been disenfranchised and about his exit from the Congress. 
He was speaking in the context of an agricultural bill, but talking 
about things that were heavy on his heart and mind.
  I stand in the historical backdrop of a pattern of racially polarized 
voting in North Carolina which has made it impossible for African-
Americans to be elected to Congress for over 90 years, despite the fact 
that a number of African-Americans of quality have offered themselves 
for office: Howard Lee, former mayor of Chapel Hill, Kenneth Spalding, 
a Durham attorney and former State legislator, H. Mickey McShaw, a 
State House member and former U.S. attorney, and my current colleague, 
Eva Clayton, who ran for Congress approximately 10 years ago, among 
others who were discouraged by the racial policies of polarized voting 
and discouraged from offering themselves for political office.
  The case of Shaw versus Reno and the opinion which we have addressed 
this evening really makes little sense. It talks about a congressional 
district constituting racial apartheid. It suggests that a 
congressional district which is 53 percent black, as my congressional 
district is, and 47 percent white, is racial apartheid; while a 
congressional district which is 80 percent white and 20 percent black 
is somehow an integrated congressional district.
  That, my friends, is sounded in racism. It talks about black people 
not being able to represent the interest of white constituents, while 
assuming that white Representatives can adequately represent the 
interests of black people. That, my friends, strikes of racism.

  I would, at the risk of not taking too much of the gentleman's time 
who has so graciously yielded, simply conclude by asking one simple 
question for Americans to ponder: There is a historic event taking 
place or about to take place in April in the country of South Africa. I 
would simply ask, would the United States of America stand still for 
South Africa to put into place a system of representation which said we 
will not guarantee whites, the white minority in South Africa, the 
right to have representation in that government?
  And yet at the same time that we would stand as a country and say to 
South Africa, that will not be acceptable, our Supreme Court in this 
land is saying to us, we will not guarantee you representation. We will 
allow a racially polarized pattern of voting, which has been documented 
time after time after time in the State of North Carolina, in every 
State in the South, to disenfranchise black voters.
  I would say we cannot ask for equity and democracy and demand it in 
South Africa, while at the same time denying it right here in our own 
country.

                          ____________________