[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2646-H2648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1530
                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time today in this 
special order to talk about an issue that is admittedly controversial 
but an issue that is going to be important to the well-being and the 
future of this country. That is, the issue of affirmation action.
  This issue is about the fundamental right of minorities and women to 
participate in this society on every level without arbitrary and 
capricious barriers.
  Mr. Speaker, affirmative action is a sledge hammer, created by this 
society, to smash the concrete barriers to opportunity. It was designed 
and implemented to erode the dual barriers of racism and sexism in this 
country, be it individual or institutional--intended or unintended. Mr. 
Speaker, throughout the history of this country, African-Americans have 
experienced the most humiliating and dehumanizing treatment every 
perpetrated on any group of people save the Native American.
  The freedom of women and minorities to participate has been both a 
recent phenomenon and more importantly, a direct result of the Suffrage 
Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act and just as 
importantly--affirmative action. While I know support for affirmative 
action has dwindled, its necessity is as apparent as ever before.
  I am here today to tell those Americans who would dismantle 
affirmative action and undermine the gains of minorities and women that 
their efforts will not succeed.
  Before the discussion can begin on the dismantlement of a policy, 
before attempts can be made to reverse the gains made by people in the 
areas of diversity, access and inclusion, before America can even think 
about having race and gender neutral laws, America must answer the 
question--have we really removed race and gender bias? Every statistic 
seems to suggest that we have not.
  Let me begin by defining what affirmative action is and how it came 
to be.
  Affirmative action is a term that first appeared in the text of the 
1935 Wagner Act.
  Inder the Wagner Act, employers who were found to have intentionally 
engaged in unfair labor practices against union organizers and members 
had to take ``affirmative action, including reinstatement of 
employees.''
  In 1941, prior to U.S. entry into World War II, President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 affirming that it was U.S. policy 
``To encourage full participation in the national defense program by 
all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color or 
national origin.''
  Further, the order required that all future Defense contracts 
negotiated by the U.S. Government contain a nondiscrimination clause.
  Executive orders for the next 20 years built upon the 
nondiscrimination mandate of Executive Order 8802. These orders 
reaffirmed the Federal Government's commitment to equal opportunity and 
reorganized the administrative structures to implement 
nondiscrimination policies in Federal employment under Government 
contract.
  In 1961 President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 which endorsed 
a more proactive approach to equal opportunity and created the 
President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
  The committee was directed ``to consider and recommend additional 
affirmative steps which should be taken by executive departments and 
agencies to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination 
within the executive branch of the Federal Government. The order 
required that Government contractors agree not to engage in employment 
discrimination based on
 race, creed, color, or national origin, and agree to ``Take 
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that 
employers are treated during employment'' without regard to these 
characteristics.

  Not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the U.S. House of 
Representatives see fit to apply affirmative action to private 
employers.
  [[Page H2647]] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for 
employers to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or 
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because 
of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or 
to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for 
employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any 
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect 
his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin.
  The act went on to provide a remedy in the event a court found that 
an employer had ``intentionally engaged in * * * an unlawful employment 
practice.''
  For the first time in American history, women and people of color had 
a guarantee of an opportunity to do what white males had always been 
able to do; the right to dream of a future and a real opportunity to 
realize that dream.
  Since the 1960's both the executive and legislative branch have 
crafted a wide range of Federal laws and regulations authorizing, 
either directly or by judicial or administrative interpretation, 
affirmative race and gender conscious strategies to promote minority 
and women opportunities in jobs, housing, education, voting rights, and 
Government contracting.
  Every President since President Kennedy has supported affirmative 
action as a tool to overcome past as well as present discrimination. 
Current standards for affirmative action were recommended in the late 
1960's to the Nixon administration by a group of several hundred large 
corporations. These recommendations, accepted by President Nixon and 
implemented by Secretary of Labor George Schultz, included the 
management by objectives concepts of employment goals and time tables.
  During the Reagan administration, the majority of the Cabinet, led by 
Secretary Bill Brock, successfully fought efforts by Ed Meese and 
Clarence Thomas to undermine the executive order on affirmative action. 
They were joined by bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate. 
By 2-to-2 votes, bipartisan majorities in the Senate have defeated 
Senator Helms' last two attempts to ban affirmative action. The 
language in Senator Helms' legislation was much like that of the 
referendum now being presented to voters in the State of California.
  Polls consistently show that Americans, by a 3-to-2 margin, support 
Federal affirmative action programs as long as they do not involve 
quotas. In addition, a January 1995 Los Angeles Times poll showed that 
when people were asked whether ``affirmative action programs designed 
to help minorities get better jobs and education go to far these days, 
or don't go far enough, or are just about adequate,'' fifty-five 
percent said the programs are adequate or do not go far enough, while 
only 39 percent said the programs go too far.
  I would submit that all Americans want a color or gender blind 
society, and that should be the goal of every American citizen. But 
serious discrimination still persists throughout this country. Study 
after study concludes that in employment, education, housing, and 
voting, minorities and women do not have equal opportunity. All too 
often, individual or institutional discrimination, whether it is 
intended or unintended, precludes minorities and women from 
participating in many levels of our society. As long as there is 
discrimination based on race and gender we must fashion remedies that 
take race and gender into account. Race and gender conscious remedies 
have proven to be essential and remain essential.
  For nearly 20 years there have been those who have attempted to 
reverse the gains made in affirmative action. Each and every time they 
have been defeated. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly 
upheld the constitutionality of race and gender-based remedies. The 
Court has held that if Discrimination is based upon the hue of a 
persons skin or the anatomy to which that person is born--then the same 
shall be taken into account when fashioning a remedy.
  For years, many opponents of affirmative action have been 
misrepresenting the law and the facts regarding affirmative action.
  Too many politicians have attempted to divide this Nation by playing 
racial politics with the quota issue. Those tactics have led many to 
believe that affirmative action and quotas are one in the same.
  In tough economic times, when people fear losing--and are in fact 
losing--their jobs, their promotions, and their quality of life, they 
feel the need to blame and to scapegoat others. In such an environment, 
divisive quota politics will always find a receptive audience. For 
years the courts have struggled contentiously to balance competing 
interests in order to meet the test of practical fainess to all 
parties. Our Nation's Highest Court has ruled that minority workers may 
be denied positions. If awarding the position would require the 
displacement of a white worker already holding the position. The test 
as articulated in United Steel Workers versus Weber is whether race-
conscious remedies unnecessarily impede the progress or interests of 
the white employees. In employing Weber, courts have drawn lines 
between actions that ``disappoint the expectations of whites and those 
that take away from them'' a status that they have already attained. 
Various means have been utilized to provide redress to workers, black 
or white, whose legitimate expectations have been defeated through no 
fault of their own. Political bodies have a wider array of options than 
the courts to assure that no one bears disproportionate burden in 
adjusting civil rights and seniority claims during tough economic 
times. If Predictions of future labor shortages are accurate, the 
dilemma should arise less frequently.
  With respect to claims of the disintegration of merit standards by 
affirmative actions policies, it has been clear from the outset that 
Federal affirmative action policy recognizes and incorporates the 
principle of merit. The courts have repeatedly stated that the purpose 
of affirmative action is to create an environment where merit can 
prevail and that if a party is not qualified for a position in the 
first place, then affirmative action considerations do not come into 
play.
  Though critics argue that the merit requirement is widely flouted, 
they have yet to produce any evidence of its widespread abuse. Most 
often, those critics argue not for the correction of the abuse, but the 
total dismantlement of affirmative action.
  Mr. Speaker, after 250 years of slavery, 100 years of apartheid, and 
40 years of intentional discrimination made legal by the States, 
minorities and women find themselves under attack.
  The vitriolic attacks on affirmative action being spewed from the 
youths of persons across this Nation, in States and localities 
throughout this country, is alarming. To those who would suggest that 
America has reached a point where a nation blind to pigment and gender 
is now at hand and affirmative action is no longer needed, just take a 
look around.
  White males are 33 percent of the U.S.
   population, yet 80 percent of tenured professors are white male, 80 
percent of this body is white male, 90 percent of the other body is 
white male, 92 percent of the Forbes 400 is white male, 97 percent of 
all school superintendents and 99.9 percent of all professional sports 
owners are white males.

  Since the beginning of this country, white males have been and 
continue to receive preferential treatment in hiring, in services, in 
contracting, in educational opportunities, and in housing.
  Since Members of this body like to use anecdotes, let me relate a 
story of what happened to the speaker of the California State Assembly, 
one of the most--if not the most powerful man in the State, Willie 
Brown, Jr. Some years ago the honorable assembly speaker attempted to 
lease an apartment in the city of San Francisco. Upon inquiring about 
the availability of an apartment, the speaker was told that no 
apartments were available. Mr. Speaker, Speaker Brown asked a white 
friend to make the same inquiry at the same location--upon requesting 
to see that apartment that friend was promptly shown an available unit. 
Now some would argue that the incident has nothing to do with race, but 
for some of us we can find no other explanation.
  The signals are clear that there are those in this country and in 
this body 
[[Page H2648]] who intend to roll back efforts on affirmative action 
and to call America's war on discrimination over.
  I stand firm in my belief ``that all men are created equal'' and that 
given the recent history of this country, measures like the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act and subsequent court rulings were and continue to be 
necessary. If this were a homogeneous society without its history of 
hatred of oppression by the majority on the minority and women, there 
would be no need for affirmative action. This is not a homogeneous 
society. This is America, black, white, red, yellow, and brown: A 
nation of great diversity, representing every part of the world. Those 
who profess to support equality of opportunity while denigrating the 
remedies available to overcome this sad history, while offering no 
solutions, do nothing more than pay lip service to what women and 
minorities see as the most fundamental of human rights: The right to 
participate fairly and freely without arbitrary and capricious 
barriers.
  I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this great Nation, that we 
cannot accept as truth, the notion that remedies designed to redress 
past, present, and future discrimination, are now somehow special 
rights conferred upon women and minorities. No matter how loud and how 
often these words are spoken, the truth is that these remedies are 
designed to lead to a more inclusive society. And on this issue there 
will be no retreat and there will be no surrender. All Americans should 
be guaranteed equality of opportunity. This proposed movement away from 
the inclusive policies of the past, presumes that we are now an 
inclusive society. The facts however reveal that we as a nation are not 
yet there.
  If America wants to eliminate affirmative action while never frankly 
discussing her invidious racial past, and never accepting as a 
principle the equality of all persons; America will see the return of 
an era gone by. An era of mass demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, and 
whatever else is necessary, by any means necessary, to show this Nation 
and the world that American women and people of all colors; red, 
yellow, black, white, and brown, will not go back--and again I state on 
this issue there shall be no retreat and there shall be no surrender.


                          ____________________