[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 41 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2709-H2714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Clyburn] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to continue our 
discourse here on the subject of affirmative action. As you know, Mr. 
Speaker, that has become a subject that a lot of Americans are 
concerned about these days. So tonight, once again, I am pleased to 
join with three colleagues who will take a few moments to try and get 
the public and our fellow Members in this body to understand a little 
better what this whole issue of affirmative action is all about.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Bennie Thompson], my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and my friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama, Congressman Earl Hilliard.
  To begin with, Mr. Speaker, as I have noted before, for 18 years 
prior to my coming to the Congress, I served my State of South Carolina 
as State human affairs commissioner.
  In that job, it was my responsibility to look after the employment 
practices, the fair housing practices, all of these issues we had under 
one umbrella, and one of those things had to do with affirmative 
action.
  So every year, while I was there, we issued a report on the subject 
of affirmative action. I want to use a little from that report to 
hopefully shed some more light on this subject.
  Now, in South Carolina, I am very proud of the fact that affirmative 
action was the order of the day under four different Governors. I 
served four Governors, two Democrats, two Republicans. All four of 
those Governors supported this concept. I want to show you exactly why.
  Today on my way back to Washington I was reading through some news 
clippings, and one of the clippings I read was written by, I think, a 
Mr. William Rushing from one of the think tanks in the country. He 
asked the question, just what is affirmative action?
  I want to take a few moments and answer that question for him, 
because he attempted to answer it and got it wrong, like so many of our 
friends do.
  A lot of people get it wrong because they really do not understand 
it. Other people get it wrong because they intentionally try to 
misrepresent it and try to inflame people with such notions as quotas 
and preferences, those kinds of words that they know will inflame 
people.
  So let us look at this chart here. You will see, Mr. Speaker, exactly 
what affirmative action is.
  If this can be seen, affirmative action is a written document, 
outlining the steps an agency would undertake to reach fair 
representation of all race and sex groupings in its jurisdiction.
  In order to do a good affirmative action plan, you go through a lot 
of things, a policy statement. You look at the responsibilities for 
implementation. You look at disseminating the policy. But the most 
important thing about affirmative action is to utilize what we call 
availability, utilization 
[[Page H2710]] and availability and analysis, looking at the work 
force, looking at the job groups and looking at the availability of 
various people in that work force.
  Now, let us look at exactly what we try to do when we analyze a work 
force. First of all, the work force analysis that we do happened to 
deal with things like just who all worked in this particular 
environment, looking at exactly what the groupings are. Then when you 
look at the groupings of people who are working there, then you look at 
the job group analysis; that is, to look at all of the groupings of 
jobs by their categories, whether you are talking about professionals, 
executives and all of that sort of thing. And then we look at the 
availability.
  Now, that is something that is very important, because this is where 
people get it wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with population. 
For instance, it may be that in a particular jurisdiction the 
population may be 30 percent black, but when you look at the kind of 
jobs involved in this work force and look for the number of people with 
the requisite skills for doing that job, what you may find is that the 
black people with the requisite skills may only constitute 20 percent. 
So then you will not be asking anybody to use 30 percent as a goal 
because of the population. You will then look at the goal being 20 
percent, because that is what the availability is, that is what the 
number of people with the requisite skills may be.
  Once you find that, that is when you then get to the issue of goals 
and timetables.
  Now, I want to spend just a couple of minutes before yielding to Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas on this whole notion of goals, because 
that is where this term ``quota'' seems to creep in time and time 
again. I have heard people say, goals mean quotas and that is that. 
Nothing could be further from the truth, and I want, and hopefully you 
can see what we call a goals form, because this is very, very 
interesting, for those people who really want to know what this issue 
is.
  A goals form has to do with looking at the current work force, 
looking at what the current work force is in a particular agency or a 
particular State. And look at this goals form. Let us look first at 
this line that says that ``executives.'' When we look at the current 
work force and we see that here you have got 21 white male executives, 
one black male executive, over here the goal, that means you have a 
total of 23 with one white female.
  Now, what you have got here is a work force that shows that 91 
percent of all the people who make up that work force happen to be 
white males. But the interesting thing is, when you go over and you 
look at
 the availability of people, you see that 8 percent of the people who 
are available in the work force happen to be black males. Almost 30 
percent, 29.8 percent happen to be white females, and 9 percent happen 
to be black females.

  When you look at that, what you will see, if you have got 8 percent 
that is available and you only got one, which is 4 percent, that means 
that you are under utilizing those people by, of black males, by 3.7 
percent. You are under utilizing white females by 25.5 percent, and 
black females by 9 percent.
  Now, what you do then is look at establishing annual goals based upon 
people's availability in the work force. And so you then look and say, 
well, if the availability is 8 percent, then that is how you set your 
goals, which is the floor. We are saying that at least 8 percent of the 
people in that work force ought to be black males.
  The interesting thing is, if the total is 23, 8 percent of 23 happens 
to be two. And so that is all you are talking about. If you have 23 
people at that level and only 8 percent of the people at that level 
qualified to do the job happen to be black, then the goal would only be 
8 percent of the total number of hirees.
  Now, that is what goals setting is all about.
  Finally, if you look at the second category here, you will find in 
``professionals'' the numbers run a little bit different. But there is 
something here about the professional I want to show you, because it 
talks about how you really find out whether or not you need to set a 
goal.
  If you look at the professionals, you will see under professionals, 
there are 26 white males, only 3 black males, 7 white females, 3 black 
females for a total of 39. But now when you look at availability, you 
find that black males constitute 5 percent of availability. And you 
look here, you find out that that means simply that there is no under 
utilization, because they have 5 percent of availability, yet they end 
up in the work force at that job category 7 percent, so in actuality, 
they are 2.7 percent over represented. So do you need to do affirmative 
action there? The answer is no. That is why we see a big ``no'' sitting 
in this category of under utilization.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would point this out tonight before we 
get started in this discussion so that those people looking in tonight 
can actually see what a goal is and, hopefully, it will in some way put 
them in a better frame of mind to listen to exactly what we have to say 
here tonight, because I think that if we can get a good, solid 
discussion going on this subject, then we all can join with our 
President, as he reviews this issue. I think it needs to be reviewed, 
because people misunderstand it.
  There are a lot of people in this Congress, there are a lot of people 
in the White House who really need to understand what they are talking 
about when they talk about affirmative action, because most of them 
have talked about an issue based upon their own personal beliefs rather 
than studying this issue as many of us have as professionals for more 
than 18 years.
  So I am pleased now, to go further in this discussion, to yield to my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn. I 
appreciate your efforts and leadership.
  Affirmative action is a phrase that has caused a great deal of noise 
and potential separation in this country. And yet, it was brought about 
for a remedy. The only reason why the phrase was ever devised is to 
address inequities in this country.
  Frequently we have said that this nation has come as far as it has 
with less than half of its brain power. One of the reasons why we say 
that is because women and minorities have been virtually ignored.
  Affirmative action actually started under President Richard Nixon, 
who recognized the inequities that existed and recognized the loss to 
this country.
  First of all, if there are no opportunities for minorities to have 
decent jobs and have an opportunity to move up, then they are not going 
to pay the taxes that they ought to be paying because every one ought 
to share that.
                              {time}  2215

  However, you cannot pay if you do not make it. I think that some 
think that the only persons that have been helped have been black 
Americans. That is so far from the truth.
  First, I think it is well-known that persons who have gained most by 
affirmative action have been white females. However, beyond that, 
especially in my State of Texas, short men, short white men, have 
gained an opportunity to be members of the Texas Rangers, who had a 
ceiling, a base on how tall one must be to be a Texas Ranger.
  I do not know if that meant that they had to be tall enough for 
someone to look in their faces upward when they stopped their cars on 
the Texas highways, or what, but it was discriminatory. It had 
eliminated virtually all Mexican-Americans in Texas from becoming Texas 
Rangers. Blacks were, perhaps, eliminated for other reasons. Also, 
white males that were short had been eliminated from being hired.
  To remove this kind of discriminatory measure that really had no 
force, had no reason to be there, offered first opportunities to white 
males quicker than anyone else, because that is always the case. 100 
percent of the persons who have been President of this country have 
been white males; 90 percent of the ones who make up this body where we 
serve are white males. I do not know that any affirmative action 
program has served to hurt white males.
  It helped white males to get jobs on Southwest Airlines, when men 
brought a suit because they were eliminated from being hired as airline 
attendants, 
[[Page H2711]] when they were called stewardesses. Then other airlines, 
too, have now started to hire. Most of the diversity went to white 
males when the change came.
  I started out as a young professional, before I was old enough to 
vote, at the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Dallas as a 
registered professional nurse. The majority of the patients were male. 
That is because the majority of the veterans were male. The majority of 
the nurses were female, because traditionally, nursing had been thought 
of as a female profession in this country. Therefore, most of the 
nursing assistants had to be male, because of lifting, privacy.
  However, that has changed, now. Why did it change? Because of 
sensitivity. Affirmative action has brought about more sensitivity than 
any other measure, and recognizing that perhaps whole groups of people 
have been left out of professions that have something to offer if they 
felt there were opportunities within those professions.
  Mr. Speaker, this affirmative action is not just for black Americans, 
though most battles to do with civil rights have been fought by black 
Americans, but we are the last ones that receive most of the benefit 
from many of the battles that we fight. However, that is OK, because 
what is good for us is good for America. Fairness and opportunity are 
good for all Americans.
  Now we talk about being a global society, and a leader in the global 
world. We cannot be global leaders, eliminating and ignoring and not 
including diversity.
  Mr. Speaker, we say we are a nation of nations, and if we are, and we 
are, we have to be diverse. Every American must feel that there is an 
opportunity. The Constitution guarantees that, and it is recognized 
that we did not get covered by the Constitution until later in its 
history, because, you know, just 50 years ago, in 1944, were blacks 
able to vote in the primary in Texas, just 50 years ago. Laws had to be 
passed, lawsuits, lots of time in court, just to get the right to cast 
a vote.
  We have done a lot for this country. We have fought very, very 
vigorously in every war. We have brought about the opportunities for 
diversity in this country. We have brought the attention to the need 
for diversity in this country. I think if we do nothing else, we need 
to continue to educate the people of this Nation that affirmative 
action is for all people.
  There have been opportunities for non-blacks to work for Members of 
this Congress that are black. I think that is important. I think it is 
important to have those kinds of relationships and those opportunities, 
but without that sensitivity, without the idea of affirmative action, I 
am not a quota supporter, because it implies just putting someone in 
the place, whether they are qualified or not. I do not support that. It 
is not necessary. There are numerous people that, given the 
opportunity, could do a good job, and perhaps even a better job.
  Mr. Speaker, a large number of the athletes professionally in this 
country are black Americans. How many black Americans own clubs and 
organizations? I think they are 100 percent owned by white males, or
 at least 95 percent. There might be one or two white females that open 
them.

  So who needs affirmative action? The sensitivity needs to go to the 
minds of white Americans, that is who needs it, to remind them to be 
fair, to remind them that this is supposed to be a color-blind society. 
However, when it goes blind, it does not see color at all.
  That is all we are attempting to do, is sensitize. I hope to live to 
see the day that we will have a color-blind society. We seem to fade 
into obscurity without some rules, without some reminders that this 
country has offered fairness as one of its core foundation rules. It 
just so happens that unless reminded, a large group of people get left 
out.
  Our intent, Mr. Speaker, is to sensitize, to educate, and we are not 
going away. We are here for the long haul. We want to see affirmative 
action live. We want to see it live in behavior. We want to work, we 
want to earn, we want to be responsible, but we cannot do it without an 
effort to give us an opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a battle worth fighting, and I really 
hate to see the exploitation that is being promised now to the American 
people to use race as dividing and bringing about lots of expression of 
hate in this country by running for President to get rid of affirmative 
action. I think that is a very, very slimy way to attempt to fool the 
American people and exploit the emotions of people who feel that they 
have been mistreated.
  I think we need to study the issue, I think we need to see if it is 
working, where it is working, and who it is working for, and we need 
some more sensitivity training, perhaps, but it is not going away. We 
will not allow it to go away. This is America, a nation of nations .
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for her 
comments.
  I wanted to point out just one thing that she talked about. It is 
kind of interesting, but she mentioned that affirmative action, 
especially the goals and timetables part of it, got started under a 
Republican administration, under Richard Nixon.
  At the time, the very first group that he brought under the goals and 
timetables happened to be the construction group. The interesting thing 
is, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of affirmative action, the goals and 
timetables, the time was established, and 85 percent of all the 
supervisors in the construction trades had to be white males.
  If we look at this little chart here now, that figure still holds 
true today. After 20 years, 84.9 percent, 85 percent, are still white 
males. I thank the gentlewoman so much.
  I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, Bennie Thompson, who I 
think wants to talk a little bit about what affirmative action means to 
the business community.
  Mr. THOMPSON. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman 
from South Carolina, I thank him for convening this special order, but 
also I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas. Clearly, affirmative action is 
on the minds of everyone in this country. We cannot let it fall victim 
to a certain radical element in this country that would like to turn 
back the progress that has been made.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about affirmative action, let us be 
very clear that it was created because a void was in this country as it 
related to employment, as it related to business, and as it related to 
minority participation in the broadest spectrum of life.
  As the gentleman indicated, all of the Presidents since the early 
sixties have affirmed through Executive order that affirmative action 
should be the law of the land. This is the greatest country in the 
world. We cannot fall victim to that radical element that would like to 
move us back, away from affirmative action.
  The lack of minorities in the workplace is well documented. If we 
talk to anyone, as they discuss affirmative action, we all agree that 
affirmative action has not made the dent that we would like for it to 
make, but we cannot argue that black people are better off without 
affirmative action, because they are not.
  However, more importantly than the statistics, affirmative action for 
the first time has allowed minorities in the board rooms, employment in 
Fortune 500 companies, and basically, to become involved in the entire 
fabric of America, so we really cannot allow ourselves to deny 
minorities, women, or whomever, an opportunity to participate in the 
entire melting pot of America.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is understand that the notion 
of affirmative action at no point signifies less than acceptable 
standards for participation. None of us here would ever, ever argue 
that if a job is available, that we should give it to a less qualified 
individual. If a contract is available, we should not give that 
contract to anybody other than some who can perform it, not to a less 
qualified contractor.
  Basically, business is better off. As business participates in 
affirmative action, business increases. You and I know businesses, 
Coca-Cola, IBM, a lot of major corporations who have recognized the 
need for diversity in the workplace. They have diversified their work 
force, but they also have increased their business by diversifying, 
[[Page H2712]] because affirmative action is a very positive step.
  Mr. Speaker, business, believe it or not, in this country is better 
off with affirmative action. However, the notion of quotas is really a 
misnomer in this definition, because we are not talking about quotas, 
but the opposition to affirmative action tries to bring the cue word 
into the debate.
  However, if we look at quotas in business, all businesses operate on 
quotas. They talk about you have to perform certain businesses 
functions, you have to have certain targets. A number of issues 
relating to quotas for businesses are very positive.

                              {time}  2230

  Sometimes people try to say businesses are against quotas. But in 
order for businesses to be successful, they have to have certain quotas 
that their employees have to meet in terms of productivity.
  It is a positive. So as we look at the term ``quota,'' we look at it 
as goal-setting, as targeting, and not something negative. Businesses 
understand that quotas are important.
  A part of that, Mr. Chairman, bringing affirmative action to the 
business place has also diversified employment. It is important that 
corporate America reflect this country. If corporate America is 
insensitive to all of us here, then we are not doing what is in the 
best interests of this country.
  Last, let me put forth the notion that this country supposedly by 
trying to shoot down affirmative action is responding to last 
November's election. Supposedly the angry white males in this country 
feel that they have been given a raw deal, or made to be somehow second 
class. That is not the notion of affirmative action. We ascribe and do 
so in concert as a group here tonight that affirmative action is a very 
positive step for this country.
  So those individuals who might see it as a negative, we hope that you 
will not continue to do that, that affirmative action is positive, it 
is healthy, and there are no statistics that I have been able to see 
nor have we been able to garner even from the opposition that 
affirmative action is not a good tool for alleviating discrimination 
and bringing about diversity in the workplace.
  I yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] so 
that we can begin the dialog that is so desperately needed to bring 
some reason to the debate rather than the hysteria that we hear so 
often from the people on the radical right.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson].
  Let me look at this chart here to reinforce a point that you have 
just made. I think all of us will agree that there is in fact a 
phenomenon out here that can be called the angry white male. The 
question is, why are they angry? I say it is because of the same reason 
that black males are angry. We are angry because of what has happened 
to family income in recent years.
  If you look at this chart here, you will see that
   between 1950 and 1978, all the people in our society were growing 
together. I think it was President Kennedy who said that a rising tide 
lifts all boats. All the boats were going up together.

  In the first quintile here, you will see, in the bottom 20 percent, 
the growth in that timeframe, in that 28-year period, the growth of 138 
percent. And in the top 20 percent, there was a 99 percent. Everybody 
went up, 98, 106 percent, 111 percent, 99 percent. But what has 
happened to the growth in family income since?
  What we see here between 1979 and 1993, that growth has been negative 
for the people. It has dropped by 58 percent for people in the low 20 
percent, 7 percent in the next 20 percent and 3 percent in the middle 
here. Yet in the upper 20 percent, their growth has gone up by 18 
percent.
  So, yes, people are angry because they are frustrated. They are 
working harder and they are making less money. So that is where the 
anger is. And those merchants of ill will are using this anger and this 
frustration trying to turn it into hate and, therefore, they are 
targeting the weakest elements of our society for these people to vent 
their anger on.
  So you are absolutely correct. I thought I would just use this chart 
to reinforce that, so nobody is denying that there is anger out there 
but that anger is not just among white people, it is among black people 
as well, because they, too, fall in these percentiles here.
  Let us now go to our good friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Hilliard], the lawyer in this group, who is going to talk a little bit 
about the public policy.
  Mr. HILLIARD. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Clyburn].
  This country has an obligation, this Government has an obligation to 
set the tone for the direction in which this country should go. And 
oftentimes we do that through laws. In many instances we leave it up to 
the States and in those situations where the States in this country set 
policies or make laws that are congruent, that keep the people happy, 
keep people satisfied, and obtain their objectives, the Federal 
Government as a rule does not invade their turf or does not invade 
their territory.
  But sometimes, because of the fact that we have 50 different States, 
the Federal Government has to step in in order to standardize, or set a 
public policy, that will be uniform, especially when it affects how the 
Federal Government itself does business or how an agency of the Federal 
Government operates.
  I say that to say that sometimes in America the Congress has looked 
and has not been satisfied with what it has see, and in order to 
correct even a President, to correct certain things, they set certain 
rules.
  Let me give an idea of what I am talking about. After World War II, 
our country became very much aware of the world, and America started 
trading, and not only trading with other countries on a very large 
scale but many of our larger corporations started moving their plants 
into other countries, started producing whatever they produced in other 
countries.
  In the 1960's and the 1970's, the Congress decided that it wanted to 
make sure that a large number of jobs remained in America. So it came 
up with the Buy American Act.
  Now, the Buy American Act was not a mandate but it was simply a 
situation where Congress gave tax breaks and gave points and they gave 
set-asides to achieve its public policy objective, making the business 
environment so conducive that companies would want to remain in this 
country, would want to produce in this country.
  Oftentimes in America, we see where certain things happen to achieve 
a certain result, such as with veterans. After World War II, we found 
that a large number of veterans had served several years in the 
service, some on the battlefield, others in other areas, but 
contributing to the war efforts.
  Congress wanted to reward those who had supported this country 
because, some of them, some males did not go, some females did not go, 
they stayed home, they went to college, and they were able to get all 
the good jobs because they were well educated.
  So when the veterans came back, they did not have the experience, did 
not have the education that the others had, so Congress wanted to try 
to rectify to a limited degree or to a certain extent some of the 
problems that the veterans had incurred by going out defending this 
country.
  So they set up a point system where it gave so many points on any 
examination for a Federal job to a veteran, and if he had been injured, 
it gave him additional points.
  If someone took a test to work in the post office and he just 
happened to be a veteran, because of his service to the country, we 
gave him an extra 5 percent or an extra 10 percent. This is because we 
wanted to set a public policy. We wanted to encourage the Federal 
agencies to hire veterans. And we also wanted to help the veterans who 
had served their country.
  So we see in these two different situations, the Buy American Act and 
the veterans act, where Congress has decided to invade the turf of 
agencies and the Federal Government itself by making things more 
compatible for veterans.
  The States have done the same thing. They gave points to veterans. 
Many of them passed the Buy Americans Act so 
[[Page H2713]] that they wanted to encourage people to do certain 
things.
  Affirmative action is also a public policy that has been established. 
It has been established by the national government, in this case, in 
many instances by executive orders of various Presidents, and also be 
certain laws that have been included in their agencies' rules and 
regulations. These laws do not mandate but just call for certain 
situations to take place. In other words, it creates incentives.
  It does not mandate, it does not demand, it does not make, but it 
just creates a favorable situation. It may be a tax break to those 
persons selling to a minority, in the case of a radio or TV station, 
because Congress wants the airwaves to be diversified. It does not just 
want all conservatives occupying and owning all the radio and TV 
stations that almost happens to be the case now. So incentives are 
given.
  But if you look at who benefits from those incentives, you will find 
that all Americans benefit. In the case of a radio station being 
purchased by a minority and certain tax preferences are given to the 
majority person who sold it, you find that that person benefits who is 
a majority. The minority benefits because he has the station.
  So, you see, it works for America. Just like the Buy American Act, 
just as the preference that has been given to veterans in terms of 
their examinations, their additional points, it served the veterans, it 
serves our country. Affirmative action also serves our country.
  But let me go beyond just public policy as it relates to the Federal 
Government. Corporate America has been swinging in the wind. Every time 
a law is made, every time an Executive order is made, every time an 
agency of the government makes a rule and a regulation, it has to 
change, because it has to obey the laws, the rules, and the 
regulations.
  We have a situation, for about the last 25 years, we have been, not 
demanding but we have been encouraging corporate America to perform 
certain acts. Many of them have very good affirmative action policies 
that they have built up over the past 20 something years. They do not 
want to dismantle them. They are very satisfied. It creates a situation 
where corporate America has been able to diversity its work force, 
diversity its boards of directors in many instances, and it has opened 
up America so that all those different groups that make up America 
happen to be included in the decision-making process, in the work 
force, and not just as consumers.
  It makes a very healthy situation. The healthy situation is what 
Congress has sought to create, not just with the government, not just 
with its agencies, but with corporate America. And corporate America is 
moving right along.
  Any interruption would cause additional problems, additional changes, 
and it would actually be a setback.
  We do not want that. Corporate America does not want that. And this 
government does not want that.
  Now, who wants it?
                              {time}  2245

  Those who seek to divide America, and those who seek to divide 
America only for their own selfish reasons or purposes. And who would 
seek to divide America? If things are moving along, if we have a 
situation where everyone has been included in our work force, everyone 
is being included in a diversified manner on all of our boards making 
decisions, who would object?
  Who would be angry because there is a policy that Latinos, women and 
blacks should be included in the work force or should be included in 
the decision-making process or decision-making boards, on decision-
making boards, who would be angry? I cannot think of any real American 
that would be angry, regardless of his gender, regardless of her 
situation. It would be un-American to be angry.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman so much. Let me point out it is 
kind of interesting you talked about the interruption, it is kind of 
interesting in the 1960's when we first started discussing what needed 
to be done in order to improve the status of black Americans, there was 
an interesting figure that I think we ought to all look at. When you 
compared black mayors' salaries to white mayors you would find in the 
1960's, black mayors made 67 cents to every dollar that was made by 
white males.
  We put in the program of affirmative action in the 1960's and it is 
kind of interesting that by 1979 that figure had gone to 81 cents to 
every dollar. But along came the 1980's and we had an interruption in 
affirmative action where there was no longer any force, the Reagan 
administration attempted to undo it, calling in studies, studies which 
did not prove that affirmative action did what they said it was going 
to do, but during that period, by the time we got to 1990, that figure 
had dropped again back to 76 cents to every dollar.
  So, my point is in the 1960's when we started this, it was 67 cents, 
it got up to 81 cent in the 1970's and now we are retrogressing and so 
that is what has happened.
  Another little thing here is kind of interesting, the unemployment 
rate has started to do the same thing. The average unemployment in the 
1950's was 4.5 percent, that creeped up. In the 1980's the average 
unemployment went up to 7.3 percent. In the 1990's we started down 
again. When this administration came into office it was 7.7 percent, it 
went as low as 5.6 percent, is now up around 5.7 percent, so we average 
so far 6.4 percent.
  So I say we are going in the right direction with our economy, and 
there is no reason for any white males or white females to be angry 
with black people because affirmative action did not do this.
  So, let me look. I think we have about 10 minutes remaining. Let me 
give each one of us 3 minutes here to kind of summarize, and I will go 
now to Congresswoman Johnson.
  Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I let me 
just share very quickly that my father told me that the reason why he 
did not want to go to college is because he did not want to teach or 
preach, he wanted to be a businessman. The opportunities did not exist. 
So, therefore, there was no encouragement to go on for education. He 
made a very good living and was a very good father to all of us.
  Times have changed, and we do not want to go back. We want our young 
people to understand that if they choose a non-traditional profession, 
if they choose to be a scientist, if they choose to be a
 physician, the opportunities will be there and those opportunities 
have not always been there.

  I remember when Texas paid black students to leave the State to go to 
medical school. We do not have to do that anymore, but we do not want 
to go back. We do not want to go back where we were. When young people 
see that their parents have an opportunity because they stayed in 
school, they do not have to continue to struggle because they cannot 
get a contract because they prepared themselves well, then young people 
will be encouraged to do the right thing and to be well qualified for 
jobs and professions that they would like to contribute.
  But if we go back, we will say to the world, as a global leader that 
in this country we do not treat all people the same, all people do not 
have an opportunity, and so take to the streets, break the law. Those 
are the opportunities you have. We do not want to go back. We would 
plead with the people, let us go forward. This is America where all 
people are supposed to have a right to the dream, and the only way that 
we have had a real little glimpse at that dream is through opportunity.
  I thank the gentleman very much for having this session tonight.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I go now to my good friend the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Thompson].
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the gentleman. Being one of the five Members 
from the State of Mississippi here in Congress, I was very happy to see 
the Mississippi State legislature finally get around to taking the 
slavery law off the books.
  My point here is there are so many things in America we have to 
correct so that even by taking slavery off the books, that is the first 
step. But if you look at my State again we have more black elected 
officials than any other State, and you would assume, rightfully so, 
that that is something to be proud of and we are. But the fact is that 
had to go to court to give African-Americans in Mississippi the 
opportunity to elect the candidates of their 
[[Page H2714]] choice. Our State government did not want that and I am 
tying this into affirmative action and civil rights.
  We have to have laws that encourage people to do the right thing. 
Affirmative action encourages individuals to do the right thing.
  But the broader issue is leadership. The cop-out is to say we do not 
need affirmative action, we are in a color-blind society, there should 
be no preferences given. But that is not leadership. Leadership 
recognizes the fact that there is a history in this country that a lot 
of us are not proud of, but we are men and women composing a Congress 
who are willing to bite the bullet and correct the past evils.
  Leadership dictates making the difficult decisions, not running from 
them.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman so much.
  I yield to my good friend from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard].
  Mr. HILLIARD. I thank the gentleman very much.
  In our society, especially in America, there are certain words that 
we do not like to use such as discrimination, segregation, set-aside, 
preferences, goals, and I do not know why people want to always avoid 
using those words.
  To me if the chair over there is brown, it is brown. And you say 
that, and you do not have to try to go around corners giving a 
description of it. In America, anything that might be negative in any 
sense, that might be bad, I find that there are so many Americans 
afraid to approach the subject, afraid to discuss the subject, and they 
whisper about it and
 they try to get around it by making everything seem to be what it 
happens not to be. And that is just America.

  But we have to change that. We still have discrimination in America, 
and if you do not know I want to tell you, we still have discrimination 
in America.
  Now once you understand that, you will understand that, sure, we have 
gotten rid of discrimination de jure which is by law, but we still have 
discrimination de facto. In fact you can look at any corporation in 
America, you can look at any agency of any State government and you 
will find that it does not fairly represent the number of minorities, 
whatever minority it is in that area. If it is in Arizona, I can tell 
you now that it does not fairly represent our Mexican-Americans; if it 
is in North Dakota or South Dakota it does not fairly represent 
Indians; in Birmingham, AL, it will not fairly represent African-
Americans. In Miami it will not fairly represent Cubans.
  What I am saying is we do not have complete diversity. We need goals, 
we need incentives, we need affirmative action to create diversity in 
our country.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close this hour by first of all thanking my 
friends for joining me this evening. Hopefully to our fellow Members in 
the House and to the public-at-large looking in tonight, we have shed 
some light on this subject.
  We hear a lot of talk today about the time for affirmative action has 
passed. Let me say in closing just a little something to you about 
time.
  My friends in this body who talk about the need to do away with 
affirmative action are always quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 
``I have a dream'' speech where he talked about judging people by the 
content of their character rather than the color of their skin. But you 
know, Martin Luther King said something about time when he wrote that 
letter from the Birmingham City Jail in 1963, just a few months before 
he made the ``I have a dream'' speech. He said time is neutral; time is 
never right and it is never wrong, time is only what we make it. And he 
went on to tell us in that letter that we are going to be made to 
repent in this generation not just for the vitriolic words and deeds of 
bad people, but for the appalling silence of good people.
  And then King said this, and I close. King said, ``I am beginning to 
believe that the people of ill will in our society make a much better 
use of time than the people of good will.'' And so I call for the 
people of good will in our society to start making a much better use of 
time and to remember that we, the people of good will, ought to make 
more use of our time, at least better use of our time than the people 
of ill will.
  With that I thank my colleagues and good night.
  

                          ____________________