[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 107 (Friday, August 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Menendez). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House of 
Representatives to talk about the 1965 Voting Rights Act. On August 6, 
about 29 years ago this Saturday, this Congress had the gall to pass a 
very sacred piece of legislation, and that is the Voting Rights Act, 
because of the need to give every American an opportunity to 
participate in democracy. So I commend this Congress for having the 
foresight to pass a piece of legislation that would have such a 
profound effect on Americans all across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I also commend President Johnson, at that time, who had 
the courage to sign such an important piece of legislation, when he 
took the floor and he took the well and talked about how important it 
was to include all Americans into our democracy.
  I also commend those individuals who took a stand today, Mr. Speaker, 
individuals who have marched and walked the highways and the byways of 
this country, fighting for inclusion. All they wanted was the 
opportunity to participate in democracy. They fought, they walked, they 
marched, many of them were bitten by dogs, some were hosed with water.
  At that time I was only 2 years old. I did not know anything about 
voting. I did not know much about anything. As I read the history books 
and read the legislative intent of this act, I really see the struggles 
that many people went through to get us to this point in life, as they 
marched and walked and fought and rallied and they talked about 
inclusion.
  It is a shame today that the very act that this Congress passed, the 
Voting Rights Act, in 1965, and the very act that the President had 
such emotions about when he addressed the House of Representatives in 
1965 on August 6, is under attack today. It is under attack in the 
Federal courts in Louisiana, in Georgia, in Texas, in North Carolina, 
in South Carolina, and perhaps in other parts of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about this shameful condition that 
we find ourselves today, now, breaking down the many barriers that we 
faced in the past to bring about inclusion so everybody can participate 
in democracy, so that everybody will have the opportunity to be around 
the table to talk about decisions and public policy in this country, 
and to see Federal courts misinterpret the Voting Rights Act, and use 
the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, 
an amendment, Mr. Speaker, that has always been used to protect people, 
has always been used as a shield, but to see courts today take that 
14th amendment and instead of using that amendment as a shield, use 
that amendment as a sword to hurt people all across this country.
  When I think about those individuals who marched and walked, and in 
many cases, many died to bring about democracy right here in this 
Congress, I am very saddened to think about the nights and the days 
that maybe people stayed up and lobbied this Congress, and to think 
about the many men and women who sat in this august body some 29 years 
ago and stood at that well and said ``It is right for inclusion of all 
Americans into democracy;'' to think about those Members who had the 
audacity, tenacity, and the gall to stand at this microphone and say 
``It is wrong to deny anybody the opportunity, the right to vote and to 
participate in democracy.''

  Several years ago, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when individuals 
could not vote unless they took literacy tests, paid poll taxes, and 
there were all kinds of disenfranchisement against many minority voters 
in this country. Blacks and Hispanics did not have the opportunity to 
sit in this Congress and to vote on major pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect if we were in the 1950's and early 1960's, as 
we deliberate today on health care, a very, very major piece of 
legislation that affects every American in this country, many 
individuals who were in the minority races would not be here today but 
for that courageous move that this Congress made in 1965.
  I want to talk just a minute about inclusion and democracy and 
fairness. Right now I sit in a body that is 435, all of whom I have a 
great deal of respect for. Of the 435 Members that sit in this House of 
Representatives, they all represent different areas all across this 
country.
  Becase of the Voting Rights Act, and because there were so many fair-
thinking Members of Congress in 1965, and a President who stepped up to 
the plate because he wanted inclusion, he decided to change the shape 
and the appearance of this institution because he wanted it to reflect 
America.
  When we call ourselves the House of Representatives, we are actually 
representatives of the people. We represent America. If one would take 
a big mirror and put in front of this building, or in front of this 
House, it should be a clear reflection of the United States of America. 
We should see women, we should see blacks, we should see Hispanics, we 
should see Asians, we should see whites, we should see people from all 
walks of life, because that is America and that is democracy.
  Just a few years ago, before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, 
you take a State like Virginia, for example, a State with about a 19 
percent African-American or minority population. It had absolutely zero 
Members in this institution representing the State of Virginia.
  At that time, I guess the President and that Congress in 1965 asked 
the question, the sacred question, and that is ``Is it right?'' You 
take the State of North Carolina, for example, a State that has a 
population of 22 percent minority. It did not have one single African-
American Member of Congress talking about serious legislation that 
affects people all across this country.
  I guess this Congress and the President at that time said ``That is 
wrong.'' Take the State of South Carolina, 30 percent African-American 
population. Not one African-American Con-gress-person sat in this 
august body since reconstruction.

                              {time}  1630

  Then you take the State of Georgia. It is 27 percent African-
American. Not one black Member of Congress since reconstruction until 
the passage of this very sacred piece of legislation.
  Then when you take my own State, a State that I have so much respect 
for, a State that I fight for every day on the floor of this Congress, 
30.8 percent African-American and did not have one African-American 
Member of Congress, but 8 Members of Congress represented that great 
State of Louisiana.
  And so the Members of this institution and the President at that time 
said it is wrong and we need to bring about inclusion and not 
exclusion, and we cannot fly across the world and talk about democracy 
in other countries and not have democracy right here at home.
  So I commend the Members of this body. I commend the Members, those 
who are gone and those who are still here today, be they Members of 
this Congress or be they back home in their own States in retirement, I 
commend every Member of this Congress who stood up to the plate in 1965 
and said, ``We're going to bring about inclusion in democracy and in 
politics in this country.''
  It is a sad thing, Mr. Speaker. We have integrated sports in our 
country. There used to be a time sports were one-sided. Today when we 
go to athletic events, we see white athletes, black athletes and other 
ethnic groups all playing the same game together, and they do it well. 
We sit in the stands and we praise them and we cheer them and we clap 
them on. We do not call them black ball players, we do not call them 
white ball players, we do not call them Asian ballplayers or Hispanic 
ball players. We call them great ball players. We call them our team. 
We cheer them on and we clap for them when they score and it makes us 
feel good.
  Whenever this country goes to war, we ask our boys and girls, we do 
not ask them are they black or are they white, what district they come 
from, how their house looks, what community they come from, do they 
live in a shotgun house or do they live in a country club. We say we 
need you to fight, to protect and defend this country. We load up the 
planes and the ships with little black boys and little black girls and 
little white boys and little white girls and Hispanics and all ethnic 
groups. We do not ask them for anything, no green card, no nothing. 
They are American citizens. We need them to fight for the country. Then 
when they go on foreign soil and they start fighting for America and 
democracy, we cheer for them and we pray for them, and we put our 
chests out big and bold and we say, ``They are American soldiers and we 
love them because they're fighting for democracy.'' We never talk about 
race.
  I am so happy today that even in our school system we are able to sit 
little black boys and little white boys and girls at the same table and 
learn together. Something that Martin Luther King always talked about. 
Where we could go to school together and learn together and pray 
together. We have worked hard to integrate our school system.
  I think this country ought to be commended, but most importantly it 
ought to be commended for integrating our armed services, integrating 
sports, and integrating our educational institutions.
  But now we have one more task left: We must integrate the institution 
of power and politics. Why is it that I as a 31-year-old African-
American who works night and day to represent every constituent in my 
district, I do not care if the constituent is black, white, blue, 
green, or purple, it is my responsibility to represent him or her, be 
they young, be they old, I care less. Why is it as a young African-
American, who fought so hard to see a colorblind society, why is it 
that I and others who look just like me are victimized by courts in 
this country? Why is it that I should not have the opportunity to serve 
in this Congress because I am of African-American descent? Why is it as 
hard as I work, I wake up every morning, I go to work, I try to pass 
good and meaningful legislation. Why is it that a shape of my district 
would determine whether or not we have a beautiful shape or not so 
beautiful shape of this Congress? I often thought courts would look at 
the shape of Congress more so than they would look at the shape of a 
district. It is ironic today that shapes of districts are more 
important than the shape of this institution. The appearance of a 
district back home in Louisiana, North Carolina, in Georgia, South 
Carolina, Texas is more important than the shape of this institution.
  I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the shape of a district should be always 
secondary to the shape of this Congress, because I am not a district 
Congressman. I am a U.S. Congressman. We all meet here in Washington, 
DC, in this August body, and we ought to be able to look like America. 
We ought to be able to take care of the business of the American 
people.
  So I say to all the courts, and to all those individuals who wish to 
turn back the hand of time: Let us not go back. We have made too much 
progress. There are only 40 African-American Members of Congress. There 
are 535 Members in the United States Congress, 100 in the U.S. Senate 
and 435 in the House of Representatives. We cannot afford to regress. 
We must progress into the future.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished leader from 
the State of Georgia for as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Thank you so much for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about my personal 
experiences during our campaign.
  The theme of our campaign was ``Warriors Don't Wear Medals, They Wear 
Scars.'' Our campaign was comprised of civil rights activists, 
environmental activists, community activists, the kind of people who 
give and give and give and give and give and really all they ask is 
that they get a better community in which to live and that their 
Government give them a fair shake.
  On election night, the volunteers in my campaign headquarters had to 
watch as the potential victors were interviewed at their victory 
parties. We had a victory party, too, and the media eventually made its 
way over to our headquarters after we had won, but, you see, nobody 
thought we were going to win. We did not have big-name supporters 
leading us around. We did not have high-dollar donors pushing us to 
win. We did not have the rich and the powerful. We did not even have 
the good old boy network. All we had were those warriors. And obviously 
that was enough.
  This was a special victory, because people like me are not supposed 
to win. I do not come from a family of wealth. I do not have hundreds 
of thousands of dollars of personal wealth. I did not inherit a 
congressional seat. I am just an average, ordinary American cut from a 
slice of average ordinary American life. In a democracy, our strength 
lies with the people. The victory in the 11th District was a victory 
for the people. That does not always happen.
  Now a former opponent who lost his bid for the 11th District wants to 
take this victory away from the people of the 11th District. In a 
classic case of sour grapes, a former candidate for the 11th District, 
who found nothing wrong with the district when he paid his money to 
run, now wants to dismantle the district and start all over again. This 
is neither fair nor right. But this is where we are today.
  The configuration of the 11th Congressional District of Georgia is 
now a matter for the courts. I would suggest that it is not the 
district or the way that the district looks that the plaintiffs find 
fault with but the way the district's representative looks that the 
plaintiffs dislike so much.
  The plaintiffs in Georgia claim that this district violates the 
rights of whites to have representation in Congress. Georgia's 
population is 27 percent African-American. Georgia's congressional 
delegation is 27 percent African-American.

                              {time}  1640

  There is value in equity, and there is value in diversity, and even 
in the South we need to learn that.
  The plaintiffs in Georgia claim that these are ``black districts.'' 
These are not black district. Ranging from 50 percent black to 64 
percent black, these new districts across the South are the most 
integrated districts in the South. These districts encourage byracial 
coalitions, something that my State and my region are not particularly 
known for. The need to build biracial coalitions and a new, fresh 
vision for the South, the plaintiffs are not known for their work in 
building biracial coalitions. Rather they are accustomed to the 
politics of division, the politics of prejudice.
  During the campaign I tried to carry our message to every resident of 
the district. Quite frankly, some of the constituents were not ready 
for that message, they were not ready for my looks, and they were not 
ready for my gender. But we have worked hard to build bridges. We have 
worked hard so that the whole community could sit down together and 
begin to resolve some very real community problems that persist.
  We have a responsibility to do the work that our southern heritage 
has left us. We still have voting rights discrepancy in several of our 
counties that have had to be addressed in our office. We still have a 
tax on local civil rights leaders that we address in our office. We 
still have women's issues, particularly women in prison who suffer from 
sexual abuse that we have had to deal with in our office, housing 
discrimination, hiring discrimination, environmental problems.
  Mr. Speaker, in short, these districts have allowed for average, 
ordinary people to receive a modicum of representation in Congress. And 
as a strong and proud Southerner, I want more for my region than a 
legacy of racism and prejudice.
  In 1868 there were 33 black members of the Georgia General Assembly, 
and in 1868 they were expelled for no other reason than the color of 
their skin. On the grounds of the Georgia State Capitol there is a 
statue that commemorates the service of those 33 who were expelled 
because of color. In fact, that is the name of the statue, ``Expelled 
Because of Color.''
  The spirit of 1868 lives unfortunately in 1994. The spirit of 1868 
lives in the hearts of some people still, and I would say that the 
spirit of 1868 lives in the motives of this challenge to the 11th 
District and, quite frankly, to the challenge of all of these 
districts.
  In 1965, President Johnson made a promise to this Nation that 1868 
would never happen again, that Americans of all colors, ethnicity, 
races, and religions would all be welcome at the table of democracy.
  In 1994, all across the South, a handful of people want America to 
renege on that promise. There is a notion that if America goes back on 
this promise that it only hurts America's minorities. There could be 
nothing further from the truth. Reneging on President Johnson's promise 
hurts all Americans who value democracy.
  Let me just say a word about democracy. We have sent our best and our 
brightest across the seas to fight for democracy. In 1946 my father, 
while still wearing the uniform of the United States of America, while 
returning on a train from Europe was arrested in South Carolina because 
he dared to want to taste what white water tasted like. We have been 
willing to spill American blood in the fight for democracy abroad. We 
have even spilled American blood in the fight for democracy at home. 
Some would have us forget all of that and return to a day when there 
was less democracy and fewer rights for people who look like me.

  I would call on all Americans who value democracy, all Americans who 
value biracial coalitions, all Southerners who value the idea of a new 
South and not the South of yesterday, to join with us to preserve these 
districts and to fight with us to protect democracy in America. We must 
protect the Voting Rights Act.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues from Louisiana, Mr. Fields, 
for organizing this special order this evening.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Georgia for her profound statement.


                             general leave

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative day's in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the subject of this special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 
just take a moment if I might to associate myself with the remarks of 
the gentlewoman from Georgia who just spoke and the gentleman from 
Louisiana who spoke earlier, and those who are about to speak in 
reference to not only the Voting Rights Act, but the ideal of equal 
representation under the law and how that is being challenged. I say 
that on behalf of not only the Congressional Black Caucus, but a number 
of Members of this body who have come to recognize the single 
importance of making sure that we protect our system of representation 
as we know it.
  Clearly, I am sure the gentleman appreciates as to I, the assistants 
of the Attorney General in this regard, the fact that the offices of 
the Attorney General have joined in with the Members who are threatened 
like this, as well as the beneficial and I think significant remarks of 
the President in this regard, all have been welcomed.
  I would, however, say that the gentleman's comments about the 14th 
amendment are particularly true, poignant and prophetic, and would urge 
those persons who have watched this special order and those who read it 
in the text of the Congressional Record to understand in the most sober 
of ways that the argument put forth by the gentleman is an argument 
which has withstood the test of time that is continued to be made in 
these hours in this century as we move toward a new century because of 
its significance politically and otherwise.
  So I wanted to briefly come over to thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana and all of the other Members who have spoken and will speak 
on this subject during this special order because of its overwhelming 
significance to the foundation and the underpinnings of this democracy 
as we know it, and I thank very much the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend and 
colleague from the great State of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today as we approach the 
30th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, I stand to celebrate this 
momentous occasion. But I also stand as one of the individuals who has 
directly benefited from that act.
  In 1960, a great President of ours talked about a Great Society. But 
he also in 1965 proclaimed in the passage of the Voting Rights Act that 
African-Americans, or blacks at the time, should enjoy the same 
benefits as other Americans.

                              {time}  1650

  I think it is fitting and proper as we go into the area of 
celebrating this Voting Rights Act 30th anniversary that we look at 
what is happening to many of the beneficiaries of this act.
  As we know, in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 
all of those States with African-American Representatives are under 
attack. They are under attack from the radical right who somehow think 
that in America African-Americans should not be represented here in 
Congress.
  I associate myself with the statements that have been made earlier, 
because it is absolutely un-American to deny individuals 
representation.
  For that radical right to look at the individuals of color in this 
Congress and say that they do not deserve the right to be here is 
something less than all of us have fought and died for.
  Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I think as we look toward the 
celebration of this 30th anniversary, we need as a country to recommit 
ourselves to the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness, as well as talking about doing the right thing. What the 
courts are trying to do in many of the States is turn back the hands of 
time.
  I implore my colleagues, I implore those individuals who are of like 
mind to join us in trying to turn the Court away from this self-
destructing effort.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I associate especially with the gentleman from 
Louisiana, who is having a difficult time. We might know before the 
close of day whether or not he has a district or not.
  It is unfortunate that in the struggle the people of his district in 
Louisiana will be denied an excellent Representative simply because of 
partisan right-wing politics, politics which does no one good in this 
country.
  So again I pause to bring celebration on this 30th anniversary of the 
Voting Rights Act, and I also challenge this country to bring about the 
creation of an equal and just society.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi, my esteemed friend and colleague from the great and 
prestigious State of Mississippi, but let me also say to the gentleman 
that the issue that we are faced with today as the gentleman so 
adequately stated is not whether or not Cleo Fields or any one of us 
will serve another day in the U.S. Congress, but the issue is whether 
or not a person like me will have the opportunity to serve in Congress, 
and that is what the Voting Rights Act is all about.
  I want to also echo some of the words that my good friend from 
Maryland, the great chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, stated, 
some of the support that has been launched from many organizations, 
particularly the U.S. Department of Justice. I want to certainly thank 
that Department, and I want to go on record in thanking the Department 
of Justice for defending the Federal statute, the 1965 Voting Rights 
Act, all across this country, and Devol Patrick, along with others, 
ought to be commended for doing so.
  I want to also thank the States' attorneys general in their 
respective States that are under challenge for defending the Voting 
Rights Act, and I want to thank the President of the United States of 
America, who has taken a very strong stand in support of the Voting 
Rights Act, the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, the Lawyers' Committee 
on Civil Rights, and I want to also thank Judge Leo 
Higginbotham, who has been working profusely with the 
Congressional Black Caucus in defense of all of these challenged 
districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my great friend from the State of North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for organizing this special order around the 
observation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and to associate myself with 
the remarks that have been made.
  I want to speak very briefly, but no less sincere than those who have 
gone to great length.
  The 1965 Voting Rights Act is 29 years old this week. This landmark 
legislation upheld the right for every American to vote regardless of 
their race, a very fundamental right that all Americans will have a 
right to participate in this great democracy, and that participation 
meant that they could participate as a part of the electorate, and they 
also could participate as an elected leader, representation, 
representative government, that would allow anyone in America without 
regard to race to also be an elected official. It is harder to be 
understood than the right to vote.
  The question needs to be asked again today, was the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act needed then, is it needed in 1994? One can say now that most 
people vote without any violation of their voting rights. Perhaps there 
are still some instances where individuals are still harassed or go to 
undue lengths before they can vote.
  Let me just remind you, however, that the 1965 Voting Rights Act gave 
two rights; the right for an individual to participate as a part of the 
electorate, and also the right to be elected as an elected leader, 
representative government.
  The 1965 Voting Rights Act does, indeed, have authority, and it has 
authority in my own district. I have 20 different counties within my 
district, the largest congressional district in North Carolina, and of 
those 28 counties, 22 of them, 22 of them are covered by section 5 of 
the 1965 Voting Rights Act simply because there is a prior history of 
voting rights violations. Yet, the Voting Rights Act, indeed, has meant 
the difference for my citizens in my district to insure them that they 
have every opportunity to participate and vote their constitutional 
rights as anyone else has.
  But I am also very, very troubled by the fact that we do not seem to 
understand that representative government is also a provision under 
this particular act. The majority/minority districts are now under a 
lot of judicial and equitable scrutiny, so-called under the fair 
doctrine. This must stop, not because fair doctrine and judicial 
process should not go on, but the disguise, the disguise that we 
pretend that we are wanting an equitable system. It is fair, and only 
fair, that all the citizens be able to be a part of the leadership as 
much as part of the electorate.
  It is equally as fair for blacks to elect other members as it is for 
all citizens to elect a black Member.
  Fair representation simply means choosing the best person to 
represent you.
  In my district, I am happy to say that as of Tuesday of this week, 
the 1965 act was reaffirmed. The New York Times, in their editorial 
this morning, I think, made a great statement. They said, ``Only a year 
ago the Supreme Court seemed ready to nullify or at least cripple the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court found that two oddly shaped 
congressional districts in North Carolina, drawn to give blacks a fair 
chance,'' not a guarantee, they said, ``a fair chance to elect 
representatives of their choice, smacked of apartheid.'' However, it 
said that the districts could stand only if the States justified them 
under district scrutiny in a full-scale trial. Well, that full-scale 
trial did occur for four consecutive months, and as a result of that 
scrutiny, they found that the 1965 Voting Rights Act did apply, and 
they upheld those districts.
  Now, I am particularly interested in seeing that the Supreme Court 
clarify, clarify without ambiguity, that, indeed, the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act guarantees individuals the opportunity to participate as an 
electorate and also guarantees the opportunity for any American to be a 
participant as an elected official.
  This process must be clarified.
  Yet there are 5 States now that are challenged, but tomorrow there, 
indeed, may be 15. There are 40 minority Representatives in this 
Congress. However, only three of them come from nonmajority minority 
districts, so if this challenge is not put into the perspective of the 
guarantees that are given for the opportunity, all Americans may find 
that democracy is really a fleeting ambition and a goal.
  It was George White who said in 1901 that, ``I may go, but there will 
be those who will come after me Phoenix-like.'' Well, in 1992, Phoenix-
like, Afro-Americans came from all over the country, because they were 
elected, not guaranteed, but elected by the citizens of their 
districts, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act gave them that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Americans to understand that democracy is no 
better than we extend to all of our citizens, and it will be worse to 
the extent that we deny any citizen.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Let me thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for her most profound remarks. Let me also say she works very 
hard, as all Members of this Congress, to represent all of their 
constituents irrespective of their race.

                              {time}  1700

  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard].
  Mr. HILLIARD. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the African-American and public is indeed angry at the 
continuous attacks on African-Americans by the right-wingers on the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unimaginable that our Nation's highest court can 
live in such a dream-like state as to believe that racism has ended in 
America and that black people no longer deserve the protections 
afforded us through the Voting Rights Act.
  The biggest roadblock this court has thrown is to deny us these God-
given rights we deserve as American citizens. For example, in Shaw 
versus Reno, this case attempts to overturn many of our Nation's 
African-American majority congressional districts.
  Can you believe that of all of the Supreme Court justices who voted 
in the majority for Shaw versus Reno, it is a black man, a colored man, 
Clarence Thomas. I could continue speaking all day on Justice Clarence 
Thomas, but I will reserve that for another time and another place.
  Allow me to say not that since the days of Benedict Arnold has an 
individual so cynically stabbed his own people in the back. Shame on 
you, Justice Thomas. I say shame on you. Racism is still a major 
problem in America, and you of all people should be sensitive and 
should understand.
  To those of you who are not familiar with the South, I would like to 
tell you about a vine that we have in the South. It is called a kudzu 
vine. This vine is very destructive. Despite its lush appearance, it is 
a very destructive plant, growing any time, anywhere, it grows very 
fast. Sometimes it grows up to 2 feet a day. You can cut it down, but 
it will grow back. You can burn it, it will still reappear next spring. 
Because in order to destroy the kudzu vine, you must pull it out by its 
roots. Racism in America is just like the kudzu vine.
  We as a Nation must be frank with ourselves, and we must have an 
understanding that it is a problem and that unless we take a moral 
stand and unless we support the Voting Rights Act, racism will continue 
to appear and reappear.
  We had begun to reach the roots of racism in America by overturning 
laws that had been on the books for years sanctioning it. I would dare 
say that with those African-Americans who serve in city halls, who 
serve in court houses, who serve in the halls of the States and, yes, 
those who serve in Congress have begun to make a difference. But unless 
we can keep them there at the very roots of democracy, we will not be 
able to stamp out racism in our lifetime.
  Our African-American congressional districts give us the opportunity 
to attack racism, right down to the roots. But if they are terminated, 
we will not have that forum, we will not have that representation.
  But there are those who would fight us because they wish to maintain 
the old ways. Yes, they are attempting to take us back in time when 
there were no African-Americans in Congress, when they made laws with 
impunity, as they wished, whenever they got ready.
  For the first time since the Northern troops left the Southern South, 
since the end of Reconstruction, we have African-Americans representing 
the Southern States. There are those who are seeking to overturn that. 
We understand that in Alabama; we understand that in Louisiana, in 
Mississippi. We from the Old South understand what is happening.

  Mr. Speaker, we must prevent it. I will tell you that when the last 
Negro Congressman left this House, what came then were the dogs, the 
anarchy, the fire hoses, a very bleak time in our history. Let us not 
have to go back to those days.
  I want Clarence Thomas and all of his kind to know that we are 
prepared to fight in the court houses, in Congress, in the halls of 
justice, wherever, to be represented in the Congress. We will not give 
up the fight.
  To my right-wing members of the Supreme Court who are hiding behind 
their black robes, I just want them to understand that, to me and those 
who believe in justice, they represent the Klan, who hide behind the 
white robes. A robe by any other name is a robe.
  I want everyone to know that if we are to insure democracy, we must 
protect the Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon a Member from 
New Jersey, another Member who represents a very diverse district. All 
the speakers you heard from this evening are Members who represent the 
most diverse districts in the U.S. Congress. They are not black 
districts, not white districts, they are diverse districts, and all of 
these Members represent all of their constituents.
  At this time it gives me great pleasure to introduce my friend and 
colleague, a more senior Member of the House, the Honorable Donald 
Payne from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman very much and commend 
for calling this special order because we believe the issue that is 
being discussed today is probably the most important issue confronting 
our Nation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention 
to a very important piece of legislation, the Voting Rights Act, which 
was passed in 1965. Today, the very same arguments made in the cases 
challenging voting rights districts, back then in 1965, are the same 
arguments being used today. It seems as though during this 30 years, 
even though we have fought and gained, we now have to once again be 
prepared to fight to protect our gains.
  You know, I have heard people discuss the shape of districts, 
congressional districts. Someone is feeling they must be symmetrical. 
But when I look at the States of the Union, California is a very long 
State, narrow as compared to its height; if you take the Dakotas, they 
are very square and nice; New Jersey has an odd shape, sort of 
peninsular style. Idaho comes down.
  So no one ever challenged the right of a State, no one said that 
State looks funny, different. But they said a congressional district 
looks funny and different. It is not shaped right.
  So all of a sudden shape becomes important.
  I come from great State of New Jersey, as does the present Speaker in 
the Chair, Mr. Menendez, and it was not until 1989 that the first 
African-American in the history of this country from the State of New 
Jersey was elected. My colleagues from the South had the privilege of 
having people serve in this august body. We had U.S. Senator Hiram 
Revels in 1870 from the State of Mississippi serve in the Senate. Joe 
Rainey from South Carolina was the first African-American elected to 
the House. As a matter of fact, it was in about 1873 when Joe Rainey 
had the opportunity for the first time to preside over the House.
  Joe Rainey held a hearing on the plight of Chinese persons in this 
country and the way they were being treated as the railroads were being 
built. He also held hearings on the treatment of native Americans in 
this country. And he had interests in those people who had difficult 
times.
  We had United States Senator Bruce in 1875, from the great State of 
Mississippi. And so African-Americans have been a part.

                              {time}  1710

  But, as indicated, New Jersey was not a part of that history. New 
Jersey had no minority until, as I indicated, I had the privilege to be 
the first one to serve our great State, and I commend the speaker also 
for being the first Hispanic American elected from the State of New 
Jersey, and so, when we look up north, we have some very serious 
problems also.
  My 10th Congressional District at one time was divided into three 
districts. It was done on purpose, and that is one of the reasons that 
we were never able to elect an African-American. A general named Irvine 
Turner many years ago ran for Congress in our city. But the 
congressional districts in New Jersey had 15, but they took three of 
the districts of the State, and they divided the city of Newark, which 
at that time had close to 500,000 people during the war. It would have 
a million people in that city during the day. But the city of Newark, 
NJ, was cut up into three congressional districts, the 10th served by 
the great Peter Rodino who I replaced after 40 years of his service, 
Huge Addonizio who was another person who left this House, and went to 
be the mayor of the city of Newark, did not have an illustrious career, 
and the 12th District, and so Newark was separated into the 10th, the 
11th, and the 12th. Then a judge in New Jersey said that you had to 
stop this.
  In 1970 the courts finally said it is wrong that Newark is divided 
into three congressional districts and throughout the districts and 
said, ``Come back with a district that could elect an African-
American.'' It took us a long time to get there. We were represented 
well by Peter Rodino who at that time, as my colleagues know, took over 
the Watergate hearings, and it was a very important time in the history 
of this country.
  And so African-Americans were patient. We had an outstanding 
Congressman, and we said that let him finish the job, and then, when 
the job is finished, then we will take the seat, and it took a little 
longer for the job to be finished, and we did elect our first African-
American.
  And so, as we look at what is happening today, as we look at the 
history of African-Americans in this country, we look at a fellow, 
Crispus Attucks, who was first killed in the Boston Massacre, who could 
not even vote, and it was against the law of every State for an 
African-American to be privileged to an education. In some States it 
was punishable by very severe imprisonment and beatings to just teach a 
black to read. But Crispus Attucks stood up for four other men, and 
defined the British, and were murdered, and Crispus Attucks today is a 
symbol of the first Americans who shed their blood for this country and 
could not even vote.
  We have people arguing in the debate about tyranny, about 
isolationists, should we become independent. As a matter of fact, it 
was African-Americans who were strong advocates for Cuba and its fight 
for independence against Spain. As a matter of fact, it was the Buffalo 
soldiers at the Battle of San Juan Hill, the turning point where the 
Rough Riders in Teddy Roosevelt's group were pinned down, and the 
Buffalo soldiers relieved Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders because they 
came around and are credited with perhaps even saving the life of Teddy 
Roosevelt who, as my colleagues know, then rose to be the President and 
the whole Roosevelt clan.
  And so African-Americans were involved so much for so long in this 
great country, and now to have to fight to preserve those things that 
Crispus Attucks fought for. As a matter of fact, there was a 
Major Pitcairn who led the Boston Massacre. He was the one who gave the 
order to shoot the men at the Boston Commons, and, as my colleagues 
know, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, where they stated, ``Don't fire 
until you see the whites of their eyes,'' it was African-American, 
Peter Salem, who was the hero of the Bunker Hill Battle and actually 
fired the shot that killed Major Pitcairn who was the one who started 
the Revolutionary War.

  And so we are so involved in the history of this country, and to have 
to stand here to defend what we have gained, to have to plead that we 
have justice, is wrong, and so, as we go through our history, as I 
indicated, we have so many outstanding persons, and then we saw 
everything start to change. We saw the civil rights movement start.
  We saw the murder of Emmet Till where America was unaccustomed to 
coming or seeing funerals of African-Americans. Emmet Till was a 14-
year-old from Chicago, went to the South to visit his relatives during 
the summer and allegedly whistled at a white woman. His body was found 
days later at the bottom of a river. But Emmet Till was brought home, 
and what shocked America was that it was traditional for blacks, and it 
still is, to have open coffins where the body is displayed, and Emmet 
Till's body was displayed, and it was not different for us because it 
was traditional. But it was different for the non-African-American 
population because they had never focused on a funeral of a black, and, 
with Emmet Till's brutalized body open for America to see, it was a 
turning point.
  I was a young fellow at the time, but I became very involved and 
followed Medgar Evers, and what he did for his State of Mississippi, 
and saw people who were going out to register folks to vote.
  And I came down to the March on Washington in 1963 and was on the 
step, the first step. I worked my way all the way up to the front, as 
close I could get to where Dr. King was speaking, and I marched from 
Selma to Montgomery, and I was on the road when they demobilized the 
National Guard not far from where Mrs. Liuzzo from Detroit was gunned 
down.
  And so, when I think of the history of this country, my personal 
involvement, the involvement of people like the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] who is one of the outstanding young Americans 
that we have brought into this body, who has so much to offer this 
country, has solutions to some of our problems, that he has to think 
about his future in this House, when we have the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Mr. McKinney] who has brought a new vision into the House, and 
many others, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], a distinguished 
jurist, and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] who is just the 
most gentle person that you want to meet; when we look at those black 
Americans who have fought to be in this House, it is unfair that we 
have to worry about eradicating their districts.
  So, I would just like to say we are going to have to keep on keeping 
on. We are going to have to keep on pushing. We are going to have to 
keep on fighting. We are going to have to keep on going. We are going 
to have to keep the right issues before this House. We have to make 
sure that another Rwanda does not happen because of inaction and moving 
too late from the world. We cannot allow this to happen.
  And so once again I would like to associate myself with the remarks 
of the previous speakers and say that I join in this effort and will 
continue to fight for right over wrong, for justice, because justice 
should role down like a river and righteousness like a mighty stream.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Payne] for his comments, and at this time I yield to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], 
my good friend and colleague.

                              {time}  1720

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Fields] for the initiative he is showing in this special order. He 
is showing an initiative that is important for the Members of this body 
and their constituents to take special note of. Though I do not come 
from an affected district, I believe that Mr. Fields and those who have 
come forward to the floor today are speaking to one of the most 
important issues we face today, and I want to indicate why.
  I am going to address this issue in three aspects. First, to indicate 
why the retention of these new districts in the south is in the best 
interests of the country. Second, to take us back to where these 
districts come from, to the actions of this body, the Congress of the 
United States, the predicate for, the reason for the language from 
which these districts were created. Third, to say a word about the 
extraordinary success of the statute we passed in 1965 and amended in 
1982, precisely to get the results we have gotten in the drawing of 
these new districts.
  The statute is the most successful of the civil rights statutes, with 
the possible exception of the public accommodations statute. That was 
the easiest of them all, and no one can say that affording equal right 
to the ballot for people of color in this country was easy as public 
accommodations after the statute turned out to be.
  First, let me say why these districts are in the best interests not 
only of their constituents, but of the country.
  As I go out into the black community and hear and read the views and 
the opinions of blacks, I am disturbed by the degree of alienation that 
is there in the black community, the sense, even after all the 
progress, that this is not a fair country. It is very disturbing.
  You see it everywhere. It is reflected one thousand times a day in 
the reactions of blacks. For example, the O.J. Simpson matter has 
brought it home most recently, where the majority of blacks see the 
criminal justice system precisely in the opposite fashion from the 
majority of whites.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the use of 
redistricting as a means of promoting racial equality and fulfilling 
the goals of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As you know, the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965 was constructed as a broad piece of legislation to 
dismantle all voting-related discrimination practices. For the past 
three decades, the courts have consistently, and with few exceptions, 
reaffirmed the provisions of this Act. It is fitting that we recognize 
the contribution of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the use of 
redistricting as a means to realize the goals of the act in a time when 
the concept of equality in representation is now under judicial attack. 
Too many Americans have fought too long and too hard to relinquish the 
constitutional rights we have fought to realize.
  Mr. Speaker, during the long and distinguished history of this 
Nation, there are few conceptions of democracy more sacred than the 
concept of representative government. The intellect and wisdom of the 
founding fathers who enshrined this concept as the central pillar of 
our democracy is what makes this Nation one of the greatest ever 
created. Yet, even with the intellectual commitment to promote 
representative government, this Nation has failed to live up to its 
potential because of the historic and entrenched practice of excluding 
minorities from being fully represented.
  We are all aware of the anti-democratic practice of excluding 
minorities from praticipating in representative government. The U.S. 
Congress has distinguished itself by playing a key role in the past by 
passing legislation designed to protect the civil rights of all 
citizens. The recent attacks on the use of redistricting by the U.S. 
courts is shocking. Redistricting is one of the most important means of 
correcting the lingering and virulent legacy of the exclusion of 
minorities from the benefits of representative government.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Voting Rights Act expressed a 
preference for creating districts where minorities have a realistic 
opportunity to be elected. Redistricting that is sensitive to the 
essential government interest of racial equality is consistent with the 
constitution and representative democracy for America.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, almost 90 years ago, the philosopher 
Santayana wrote, ``Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on 
retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to 
fulfill it.'' Some of us refuse to forget the lessons of the past. We 
will not forget, will not turn back and will instead push forward.
  In just a few days, we will celebrate the 29th anniversary of the 
Voting Rights Act. Yet 29 years after enactment, we are still fighting 
the same battles and defending a law that has helped enfranchise 
millions. The recent Supreme Court decision in Shaw versus Reno has 
opened the door for opponents of this law to call into question the 
propriety of all race-conscious redistricting. However, history is 
illuminating on this issue.
  Historically, African-Americans have been disenfranchised. Prior to 
the Civil War, only white males had the right to vote. During 
Reconstruction, Congress passed election laws that guaranteed the right 
to vote and established Federal supervision. Congress also passed civil 
rights legislation that imposed fines and criminal penalties on those 
convicted of conspiring to deprive citizens of their civil rights. As a 
result, black participation in the political process rose 
dramatically--70 percent of eligible black voters were registered; 10 
African-Americans were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives; 
two to the Senate. They also influenced local, State, and national 
elections throughout the South.
  Opponents resorted to a number of tactics, mostly illegal, to 
discourage or stop blacks from participating in the political process, 
using creative measures to hinder voting. States passed laws to deter 
African-American voters and found legal ways to permanently 
disenfranchise African-Americans.
  In the mid-1960's Congress passed the Voting Rights Act as one of a 
handful of powerful civil rights statutes. Passage did not immediately 
produce results. Subsequent legislation was necessary to properly 
ensure its intent. Finally, the legislation is working as intended. 
After the 1990 census, 32 majority African-American and 20 majority 
Hispanic Districts were drawn resulting in the number of minorities in 
Congress doubling from 26 to 52. In North Carolina, the subject of the 
Shaw case, no African-American had been elected to Congress since 
Reconstruction until 1992. Despite 1.46 million African-Americans in 
North Carolina, they had no congressional representation from their 
community for well over a century. Although not originally in the act, 
bilingual provisions have enfranchised Hispanics. Hispanics registered 
to vote in the Southwest doubled from 1976 to 1988 from 1,512,300 to 
3,003,400. Considerable progress has been made. It is not surprising 
that opponents have once again cloaked themselves in the rhetoric of a 
color blind society to overturn the very progress that has been made 
toward that goal by the Voting Rights Act.

  In Shaw versus Reno, the Supreme Court ruled that a district that is 
so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than 
race may be challenged on constitutional grounds. Why should race 
become a suspect factor in drawing districts? Historically, oddly 
shaped districts have been drawn to protect incumbents, protect a 
parties' interest, accommodate geographic features such as rivers and 
mountain ranges, and put similar groups of people, such as farmers, in 
one district. Why then is it constitutionally suspect to draw oddly 
shaped lines to remedy past racial discrimination? Districts can be 
perfectly symmetrical but dilute voting strength by fragmenting 
concentrations of minority populations. Esthetics is not the issue; it 
is whether groups can combine effectively in political activity.
  The claim that majority minority districts are political apartheid 
and exacerbate racial bloc voting has no basis in fact. Congress 
rejected this claim more than a decade ago, and no more credible 
evidence exists today then at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests 
just the opposite. Majority minority districts and the election of 
highly regarded and respected individuals, among them my colleagues in 
this body, tend in the long term to decrease racial bloc voting and 
polarization as well as challenging racial stereotypes. Remedial 
redistricting has broken down racial barriers and permitted minority 
voters to participate on an equal basis in the political process, as 
can be seen in the number of enfranchised voters and minority elected 
officials at all levels of government be it local, State or Federal.
  Nor are majority minority districts segregated or ghettos. Despite 
its irregular shape, the 12th district of North Carolina, represented 
by my colleague Mel Watt, is less segregated than any congressional 
district previously drawn in the State with totals of approximately 57 
percent black and 43 percent white voters. To suggest that a district 
is a ghetto because it is predominantly comprised of African-Americans 
or Hispanics but by reversing the percentages or by creating districts 
that are 100 percent white we have integrated ones turns logic and 
reason on its head. Political apartheid much more accurately describes 
the system in place before the Voting Rights Act when no African-
Americans represented any Southern State in Congress.
  On the eve of the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, let us 
reflect on the lessons of the past. Considerable progress has been made 
in the area of minority representation on all levels of government, and 
there is more work to be done. Let us continue to work to enfranchise 
voters and reinvigorate the electoral process. Majority minority 
redistricting has proven to be an effective remedy to counteract 
efforts to dilute minority voting strength and the disenfranchisement 
of voters. We cannot allow the progress already made to be undone. Let 
us not doom ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Menendez). The time of the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] has expired.

                          ____________________