[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         JAPANESE-AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE NATIONAL CONVENTION

                                 ______


                         HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, August 19, 1994

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I submit a speech I gave before the 
Japanese-American Citizens League at their national convention on 
August 6.

       Mr. Chairman. It has been many years since I spoke on a 
     resolution pending before a National Convention, but I am 
     compelled to do so in this case.
       I believe it would be disastrous if this Convention were to 
     repudiate the action of our National Board in this matter.
       there are those who have argued that gay rights issues are 
     not Japanese American issues.
        I cannot think of any more dangerous precedent for this 
     organization to set than to take a position on an issue of 
     principle based solely on how it directly affects Americans 
     of Japanese ancestry. When we fought our decade-long battle 
     for redress, we won. We could not have done so if we had 
     stood alone in that fight.
       Where would we be today if the NAACP, or the National 
     Council of La Raza, or the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai 
     Brith, or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had taken 
     the position that redress was a Japanese American issue--and 
     had nothing to do with African Americans, Hispanic Americans, 
     Jews, or gay and lesbian Americans?
       Those organizations, and their members, joined us because 
     they understood and believed in our argument that a threat to 
     the civil rights of one American is a threat to the civil 
     rights of all Americans. They aced based on that principle--
     and not on a narrow evaluation of how redress affected their 
     own communities. We could not have won without their help. 
     But for all the support we generated outside the Congress, 
     redress did not begin moving in the Congress until 1987.
       For years, the Administrative Law Subcommittee in the House 
     of Representatives had been chaired by an enemy of redress. 
     He held hearings, but stacked the witness list against us. 
     And he made sure that the Civil Liberties Act died at the end 
     of each Congress.
       Those roadblocks came tumbling down in 1987, when the 
     leadership of that Subcommittee changed--and Congressman 
     Barney Frank became its Chairman.
       I remember I mentioned to my staff that I should go and ask 
     Barney if there was any way to get redress moving. I never 
     had the chance to go to him. He came to me in the opening 
     days of the 100th Congress. He told me that his top priority 
     as Chair would be to make the promise of redress a reality--
     and by the end of the 100th Congress, redress was written 
     into the laws of this country.
       A gay Congressman from Massachusetts, with only a tiny 
     Asian Pacific American constituency, makes redress his top 
     civil rights priority. Why? Because he saw our civil rights 
     as an issue of fundamental principle for this country.
       Our success came from the willingness of countless 
     Americans of all backgrounds to take the same position. How 
     can we as an organization turn around today and say that the 
     civil rights of other Americans have nothing to do with us? I 
     do not think we can.
       Our reputation as a national civil rights organization is 
     based, more than anything else, on our dedication to 
     principle and our resolve to stand by our decisions.
       During what is right is often controversial. Doing what is 
     just is often unpopular. But if we are to remain a viable 
     voice in the national civil rights movement, we cannot back 
     away from our commitments simply because the issue is 
     difficult.
       I urge the National Council to vote ``No'' on Resolution No 
     6.

                          ____________________