[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3943-S3944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself and 
actually commend Senator Cohen for the statement he just made on the 
subject of affirmative action. I have had the pleasure of serving with 
Senator Cohen now since I came to the Senate 2 years ago. I have seen 
him in action, and I have been just overwhelmed and, frankly, very 
grateful that he brings to these issues, particularly the hot-button 
issues and issues pertaining to race, a sensibility, a level-
headedness, fairness, and a perspective that is just so important to 
have in this body.
  It is because of the work of Senator Cohen and, frankly, many of the 
other Senators who approach these issues with a perspective that 
relates to the interests of our community, that makes it easier to 
address these issues here than might otherwise occur.
  I come to the floor, Mr. President, though, because I just left a 
meeting of the Finance Committee in which the committee voted to repeal 
a section of the Tax Code which provided for minority and female 
ownership of broadcast media. The argument around the repeal had come 
up because of a particular deal that was talked about in the 
newspapers, one that has been debated as to whether or not it was a 
good deal or fair deal.
  The point is that by its action, in my opinion, the committee has 
essentially cemented the glass ceiling that keeps women and minorities 
from participating as full partners in an important industry that 
really goes to the very heart of the character of our country.
  I say that because, Mr. President, the section that was under review, 
section 1071, was originally adopted back at a time when the concern 
was over diversity of voices in the airwaves. The notion was that our 
entire community had an interest in hearing a multitude of voices so as 
to avoid the almost Orwellian Specter of a single point of view, a 
single voice being communicated to the American people over the 
airwaves.
  And so this section was initially adopted in order to provide for 
openness, in order to provide for inclusion, in order to provide for 
diversity of voice in the airwaves. At the time, by the way, Mr. 
President, when the broadcast spectrums were initially instituted, they 
were essentially given away. There was no cost associated with them at 
the time.
  As you can well imagine, Mr. President, at the time of the giveaway 
of these broadcast spectrums, no women got anything for free; no 
minorities were at the table. It was a situation in which you could 
almost say there was a 100-percent set-aside for white males who knew 
about broadcast spectrums and the opportunities they might provide.
  Subsequently, Mr. President, the Congress decided that this section 
of the law that provided for openness and for inclusion and for 
diversity of voice should be amended to provide opportunity for women 
and minorities to have ownership of broadcast facilities. So the tax 
certificate approach was used as a way, really a tax way--it was not a 
set-aside in the sense we think of. It was a provision in the law that 
allowed for the private sector to diversify the airwaves, and allowed 
for the private-sector actors to come together and open up ownership so 
there would be this diversity of voices and so there would be 
diversity, in fact, in the ownership of broadcast facilities.
  That section of the law has been with us for awhile, and it is almost 
disappointing, frankly, to note that in all the years since the 1980's, 
when this section was amended to include women and minorities, as of 
today women own about 3 percent of the entire broadcast industry--3 
percent--and minorities own about 2 percent of that same industry.
  So for all of this time and all of the effort, we still only were 
able to come up with a cumulative total of about 6 percent of the 
entire industry owned by women and minorities--a long way, I suggest, 
Mr. President, from achieving the kind of diversity of voice, the kind 
of diversity that was originally intended by this section.
  However, apparently there was a deal announced in the newspapers that 
involved some high-profile actors in the broadcast field, and the House 
took it upon itself to target that specific deal--and I will use the 
name, the Viacom deal--to target that transaction as the basis upon 
which to repeal section 1071 and thereby constitute the first shot 
across the bow, if you will, on affirmative action.
  The chairman of the committee was actually--it was kind of almost 
humorous because the chairman of the committee said he never expected 
that the first battle on affirmative action would come in the Finance 
Committee. But lo and behold, I guess by the law of unexpected 
consequences, it wound up there, and so we had to take up the issue of 
what about this section of the law? Is there some unfairness here? 
Should we maintain it or should we repeal it?
  Mr. President, the question underlying this tax certificate issue was 
extension of health insurance for the self-employed. We all, I think, 
support that. People who are self-employed ought to be able to deduct 
their payments for health insurance just like anybody else. And we are 
just now restoring a partial effort in that regard. But the question 
before the committee was not just the reinstitution of the 25-percent 
deduction for health insurance. The question before the committee was 
how to pay for that. Do we pay for that through the repeal of this tiny 
step for women and minorities in the broadcast industry, do we pay for 
it with the repeal of section 1071, or do we find some other revenue 
sources?
  Mr. President, it was, frankly, reflected in the President's budget, 
and a number of the members of the committee were interested in other 
alternative revenue sources such as a revenue source coming from those 
Americans who renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying taxes. 
That provision, had we just changed the law a little bit for those 
billionaires that renounce their American citizenship to avoid paying 
taxes, would have raised twice the money, two times the money that 
would have been raised by repealing section 1071.
  Unfortunately--and this is why I have taken the floor this 
afternoon--the committee decided it was going to go ahead and repeal 
section 1071 nonetheless, that somehow or another this was affirmative 
action gone amok, that somehow or another there was some problem with 
this section, that is, it was open to abuse and fraud alike.
  The fact is, the facts do not show that. The facts show that those 
few minorities and those few women who participate in the broadcast 
industry in an ownership capacity got there in large part because of 
the existence of this statute that made it, frankly, financially 
worthwhile for sellers to sell to them. People would sell to minorities 
and people would sell to women precisely because they knew that there 
would be some tax deferral by virtue of the ownership of these tax 
certificates.
  To the extent the door was open or the window was open or the ceiling 
was cracked just a little bit, what the committee did this afternoon 
was to seal over the crack in the glass ceiling, to shut the window on 
minority ownership, to close the door on women who would own in this 
area, and to really seal them in and make it more difficult than 
before, in spite of the limited success we have had so far.
  I would like to review, just for a moment, some of the numbers. I 
have used percentages, but just so you get a sense of it: Of the 11,586 
broadcast stations--11,586 broadcast stations, 420--420 are owned by 
women, and 323 are owned by minorities.
  With regard to television stations, of the 1,342 television stations 
operating in the United States, 26 are owned by women and out of that 
number 31 are owned by minorities. I can break the figures down further 
and I certainly intend to do that at some point in the future. But the 
point is, of this huge industry, there is just a little bit of 
diversity of ownership. And the committee this afternoon decided to get 
rid of that.
  In radio, out of 10,244 radio stations, some 394 are owned by women 
and 292 are owned by minorities.
  It would be one thing if we were just talking about ownership, and 
that certainly is the issue. But think what that says about the whole 
notion of diversity of voice. If, to the extent we have 
 [[Page S3944]] minority ownership at all, to the extent we have female 
ownership at all, if we foreclose it and make that more difficult, then 
I fear we are doing a disservice to all of the American people who 
would benefit from the opportunity to share in the diversity of 
viewpoint, the diversity of voice, the diversity of opinion, the 
diversity of conversation, the diversity of perspective that is brought 
to this broadcast industry, which communicates information to all of 
us, by the presence of women and minorities in the field.
  I listened to the majority leader a moment ago as he was speaking. I 
want to say this at the outset: I did not hear all of his comments, but 
I did hear some. One of the statements was the race counting game had 
gone too far. I daresay, if anything, that almost casts this debate in 
the wrong light altogether. No one is in favor of unfairness. No one 
wants to be unfair to white males. No one wants to be unfair to black 
males, black women, white women, Asian, Hispanic--you can go down the 
list and divide us up any number of ways. But the bottom line is we are 
all Americans. We are in this together and we will rise and we will 
sink as a Nation together. And to the extent we define ourselves as a 
community with coherent interests, with interests that come together, 
we will succeed as a Nation. We will not allow ourselves to be divided 
up and pitted against each other in this no-win, lose-lose game--I 
submit a cynical political game that suggests that race counting has 
any role in any of this.
  That is not what affirmative action is about. I think Senator Cohen's 
remarks on this point were very well taken. Affirmative action is not 
about race counting. It is not about quotas. What it is about is the 
total community recognizing the value of opening up opportunity so the 
face of opportunity in America is everybody's face; so it is not just 
white males who are given broadcast spectrum, but now it is the face of 
black people, brown people, women, and all kinds of groups that were 
not previously included in the definition.
  When we talked about the American dream 100 years ago, it had a 
particular meaning. It meant white male, period. I was reminded women 
in this country just got the vote 75 years ago. So even though an 
American of African descent--the emancipation happened over 100 years--
as a woman, as an African-American woman, I still would not have been 
even able to vote until 75 years ago.
  So the face of the American dream is changed. The face of the 
American dream now is a multiplicity of people. It is a multiplicity of 
faces. It is an inclusive face. It includes everybody. It includes 
everybody who subscribes to the ideals and the values that define us as 
Americans.
  I submit that this debate about affirmative action goes to the heart 
of what we mean by who is included in this American dream. It goes to 
the heart of whether or not opportunity is going to be open to all 
Americans or just some Americans; whether or not we are going to begin 
to try to undo and fix some of the persistent problems that we have in 
our society by providing some support and some help to those who have 
previously been excluded.
  It is for that reason, again, I am very distressed by what happened 
in the committee this afternoon. I am very distressed by the assault on 
affirmative action. I am very distressed, frankly, by the tenor that 
this conversation has taken--happily, so far, outside of this Chamber. 
I hope here in the Senate we will have a more reasoned debate about 
what are the real issues here, and not allow ourselves to get separated 
and inflamed, and not allow for the hot button appeals to pass and 
prejudice to succeed.
  I hope in this body we will take it upon ourselves to look at the 
facts and make our decisions based on reality and not myths, 
preconceptions, diversions, and misinformation; make our decision based 
on what is actually going on in our country and what direction do we 
want to take.
  I think in Senator Cohen's remarks--and I would like to take a point 
there to make the next step and talk about the next point--he talked 
about people having a sense of opportunity, of being able to rise to 
the highest level of their ability.
  Certainly, ability and merit and excellence are concepts that are 
important and dear to all of us. But the question becomes to what 
extent do those who feel they are denied inclusion--to what extent do 
we not exacerbate, make worse the hopelessness that besets all too many 
of our communities, that besets all too many of our people? To what 
extent do we not exacerbate the notion that you can rise just so far 
but you cannot go any further; the notion the glass ceiling is there, 
intact; that a woman can only go so far, that a minority can only go so 
far in maintaining the institutions and the systems that by their 
operation create whole communities of disaffection? By maintaining 
those institutions, I believe we buy into and build up and give succor 
to the hopelessness that is beginning to erode the very foundations of 
our national character.
  I submit this debate is going to be one of those turning debates, one 
of those critical debates that will direct the future direction of our 
country as we go into the next millennium which, as you know, is only 5 
years from now. As we go into this next century, the question before us 
today--whether it is in a debate as specific and as complex as 1071 and 
the operation of a section of the Tax Code, or if the debate is on 
something more general and straightforward that people can grasp onto--
the question becomes, for this body, how shall we proceed in this 
debate? Shall we allow it to become the kind of hot button race-baiting 
prejudicial kind of inflammatory debate that pits us against each 
other, inflames passions, distorts the debate, ignores the facts, and 
plays into myths and prejudices and fears? Or, instead of playing into 
people's fear, do we play to and direct our comments and our 
conversation and our decisions to the hopes of the American people that 
the American dream really is still alive; and that it lives not just 
for white males, but it lives for black males and black women and brown 
males and brown women and men and women of every stripe and description 
who call themselves Americans?
  That is what this debate is about. I know the issue is going to come 
back to the floor time and time again. I am making extemporaneous 
remarks right now about it. But I was drawn to come to the floor this 
afternoon in large part in response to some of the things that were 
being said earlier.
  I just submit to you that I hope that as we go down this road it will 
be a road we go down together and that we can appeal to, as Abraham 
Lincoln said, the ``higher angels'' of our nature and which address 
what is in the best interests of our country as a whole. And, therein, 
I think we will find a correct answer as to what to do about the issue 
of affirmative action.
  Thank you.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first of all say that I am very 
glad coming down here I have the opportunity to hear the statements of 
both the Senator from Maine and the junior Senator from Illinois about 
the issue of affirmative action. It is again encouraging to see the 
U.S. Senate acting in a bipartisan manner to ask the questions that 
have to be asked about certain aspects of the so-called Republican 
contract that we are going to carefully examine the record of 
affirmative action and other such issues and make sure that in our 
haste to address some genuine public frustration that we do not destroy 
some of the things that have been done in the last 20 or 30 years that 
actually have helped people and made this country a fairer place.
  So I appreciate that.

                          ____________________