[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5290-S5293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to take up another 
subject that is probably as controversial as the Contract With America 
and what has happened in the last 100 days.
  I recently met with a group of concerned women in Illinois to discuss 
the continued relevance of affirmative action. The idea of the meeting 
arose quite naturally. As with any other debate that is happening here 
in Washington, I try to reach out to those in my State who will be 
impacted by changes that Congress might make, in order to get the input 
of their collective wisdom.
  The meeting was arranged when we, at last, had a few days to spend 
back in the State. As you know, Mr. President, we have not been able to 
get back home as much as we would like. So the meeting was arranged 
somewhat hastily; we did not have a great opportunity to plan for it. 
Nor were we able to provide interested parties with much in the way of 
advance notice.
  However, as it turned out, the meeting was a resounding successful. 
Frankly, I do not think I could have even imagined how successful it 
would be, or how many people would rearrange their plans to meet with 
me on a moment's notice.
  My office was filled with women who spanned the political and 
economic spectrum. There were women who had spent their lives doing 
grassroots political organizing, and women who had spent their lives 
working in corporate America. There were women who had started their 
own businesses from scratch, as well as women working in unions and 
associations. Many of the women present had also spent years 
exclusively as homemakers.
  Despite the diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds represented at 
the meeting, there was a near unanimity of response. The women in that 
room wanted to know why Congress would choose this moment in time to 
turn its back on the promise of equal economic opportunity, when so 
much work remains yet to be done; at a time when, despite all of our 
efforts, a glass ceiling still works to prevent qualified women and 
minorities from making full use of their collective talents.
  The women at the meeting wanted to know how Congress could ignore the 
overwhelming evidence that affirmative action benefits not only 
individuals, but employers and society as well. Finally, they wanted to 
know what they could do to help preserve this country's commitment to 
equality, opportunity, and fairness.
  Every woman at that meeting agreed that she would have been denied 
opportunity in the absence of affirmative action. Every woman agreed 
that she had been provided with opportunities because the climate 
created by affirmative action helped to encourage diversity and 
inclusion, and helped to open up fields of endeavor that might have 
otherwise been closed to her. And, more importantly--or as 
importantly--every woman there could recall a roadblock that had been 
placed in her way 
[[Page S5291]] as she tried to become an equal participant in the 
marketplace.
  The barriers to equal opportunity, and the roadblocks that one runs 
into because of gender are not subjects that most women generally 
discuss. Frankly, most women would prefer to meet the potholes and the 
ruts in the road, to confront them head on and overcome them, if 
possible, and then move on. Yet every woman present agreed that 
congressional efforts to repeal affirmative could only serve to put 
cement on the glass ceiling, and to make those hurdles higher. If that 
happens, Mr. President, these women will come out of the woodwork. 
Letters and phone calls will pour in from across this Nation, Mr. 
President, as women tell their stories. The sentiment in that room can 
be summed up quite simply: Women cannot, and will not, turn back.
  The simple fact is that many of these women were in professions that 
women could not even enter 20 years ago. Many of the women in the room 
had been hired for jobs or had received promotions that would have been 
unthinkable in 1965, or even 1975. And all of them felt that the 
existence of affirmative action in the laws and in executive orders in 
this country had opened doors, had created a climate of diversity, had 
created an environment for their inclusion.
  Finally, despite the progress they had made, all of these women felt 
that there were still barriers to their advancement, that the glass 
ceiling was all too real. They concurred that efforts by this Congress 
to retreat from the commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace 
would have the effect of putting cement on that glass ceiling, and make 
it much more difficult for women to participate in the economic, 
political and social life of this country.
  Given the enthusiastic reaction at the meeting that took place in my 
office, I was frankly not surprised to learn 2 days ago that a 
Coalition for Equal Opportunity is being formed in Illinois. At a press 
conference on the 17th of April, more than 40 women's, civil rights, 
labor, religious, and business organizations will announce their 
intentions to work to preserve equality and fairness in Illinois and 
throughout the Nation. They announced their intention to begin to 
galvanize and work to explain to women what affirmative action really 
means--the truth of it.
  I gave a statement on the floor the other night, Mr. President, in 
which I went some detail about the truth of affirmative action--what 
the myths are, what the realities are, and how women and minorities 
will be affected by efforts to repeal it.
  For those who may be wondering if the reaction of that group is 
atypical, I can assure you, it is not. There is a tendency in 
Washington to get wrapped up in what is happening here on the Senate 
floor. Sometimes, we can lose sight of what people are saying out there 
in the real world, what is actually going on in communities.
  It is interesting to note that there is an old expression, ``How does 
it play in Peoria,''--a town that is, of course, in my State of 
Illinois. How does it play in Peoria? This is a short-hand way to cut 
through the beltway issues and get to what the people out in the heart 
of the country think about the issue.
  There was a major story that recently appeared in the Peoria Journal 
Star, a major newspaper in Peoria, that gives us a sense of how this 
issue, the affirmative action debate, is playing in Peoria.
  The headline of the article is entitled, ``Toward a Middle Ground: 
Re-Think Affirmative Action, But Don't Kill It; Issue Demands 
Caution.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the article be printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would like to discuss a few points made by that 
article, because I think it is helpful for those of us in this body to 
be aware of how some people in America's heartland feel about the 
affirmative action issue.
  First and foremost, the people in Peoria are echoing the conclusions 
reached last week by the Department of Labor's glass ceiling 
commission: affirmative action makes good business sense. As the 
article states:

       A half-dozen Peoria area employers and educators contacted 
     over the last week said they make special efforts to promote 
     diversity not because the Federal regulators are on their 
     backs, but because it's in their interest. In some 
     circumstances and with some individuals, a black cop or 
     teacher can be more effective than a white one. A rape victim 
     may be more willing to tell her story to a female reporter. A 
     Hispanic salesman may be better able to reach that market. 
     It's not just black students who benefit from attending 
     college; whites are more fully educated--wiser if you will--
     for having black classmates and roommates.

  Mr. President, these are businesses in Peoria, not New York or even 
Chicago. This is Main Street, not Pennsylvania Avenue. And these Main 
Streeters recognize that affirmative action is more than a private 
benefit; it is a public good. If we can open opportunity to a student 
or a job applicant who has been previously excluded from consideration, 
obviously, that person benefits. What is less obvious, but just as 
important, is that society benefits as well.
  The Journal Star's article continued on to point out that, while 
America has made great strides in equal opportunity, there is still 
much work to be done. The dream of America as a colorblind society has 
not yet been realized even though all of us want, I think, to move in 
that direction. There are still entire professions, entire companies 
and even entire industries that remain virtually off-limits to women 
and minorities, particularly in the upper-levels. The glass ceiling 
report reached that conclusion after years of painstaking research; in 
reality, all people need to do is look around their boardroom or their 
classroom to figure out what is really going on. As Clarence Brown, 
personnel director at Peoria's Bradley University, stated:

       Everyone still believes the Government is forcing 
     businesses to hire minorities--it's not. At every workshop, 
     somebody brings that up. We say, look around you, and in most 
     of those workshops there are no minorities at all, and most 
     of the people there are white males.

  Mr. President, as I have said before and will say again, I agree that 
all affirmative action programs should be subject to review. Everything 
that we do in Government, if the Government is to function effectively, 
from time to time, be subject to scrutiny and accountability. But there 
is a difference between review and retreat.
 In fact, the issue we are facing right now is that we make certain 
that retreat does not mean retrenchment. It is important that efforts 
to promote diversity are fair to everybody. It is important that the 
affirmative action initiatives do what they say they do and that we 
weed out the companies that run amuck and bureaucrats that run amuck 
and make a rash of regulations that are illogical.

  So review in and itself can be an opportunity for improvement of 
affirmative action but it should never be used as an excuse for 
retrenchment from our commitment to fairness.
  As the Peoria Journal Star article concludes:

       It would be a mistake to abandon the broad commitment to 
     act affirmatively to make for a more inclusive America: To 
     recruit, to recognize the value in diversity, to provide more 
     opportunities to those, regardless of sex or color, who have 
     too little from the moment of birth.

  In other words, an absence of discrimination is not enough. The 
Federal Government, employers, and our universities must reach out 
beyond the traditional groups and ensure that all people are given the 
opportunity to succeed in America.
  Some have argued that, even if the Federal Executive order on 
affirmative action is repealed, businesses will continue to seek out 
diversity because it is the right thing to do. It affects the bottom 
line in a positive way. That is possible. But I do not think promotion 
of diversity would proceed as rapidly in the absence of legal guidance. 
Indeed, it is likely to slow down and some of the evidence suggests 
that where the legal requirement has changed affirmative action efforts 
have slowed down.
  The more probable scenario is described this way in the article from 
the Peoria paper:

       The other possibility is that ending Federal affirmative 
     action mandates will make our workplaces and campuses look 
     more Germanic than American. The commitment to minority 
     recruiting will fade as time passes. Blacks shackled by poor 
     schools and single-parent families will be more disadvantaged 
     than they already are in competition for 
     [[Page S5292]] spots in good colleges, necessary to put them 
     in competition for good jobs. Minorities and women who would 
     be otherwise competitive will run up against the good-old-
     boys network and the human tendency toward the familiar--to 
     give the job to somebody who looks and things as you do.

  Is that what we want from America? That scenario runs counter to the 
American dream, the dream of opportunity for everyone, the dream of 
traveling as far as your abilities will take you; or, as many parents 
put it to their children, the dream that any one of us could one day 
grow up to be the President of the United States. If that dream is to 
have any basis in reality, we cannot retreat from our commitment to 
affirmative action. To those who will easily dismiss the Peoria Journal 
Star observations, and my remarks on this subject, again I have already 
made one more detailed speech about this issue, and I intend to make 
others about this issue to focus in on particular parts of the debate 
and particular issues going to the facts of this issue, I would like to 
remind whoever is listening that Illinois has long been a bellwether 
State on the issue of equal opportunity.
  As far back as 1914, a woman's organization known as the Kappa 
Suffrage Club realized the link between equality of women, and equality 
for minorities, and worked for the election of the first black alderman 
in the city of Chicago. The League of Women Voters was founded in 
Illinois in 1919 by Carrie Chapman Catt, who stated at the time that 
``Winning the vote is only an opening wedge, but to learn to use it is 
a bigger task.''
  I know that there are attempts by some to turn the affirmative action 
issue into a cynical debate about race. We cannot allow that to happen. 
There are too many problems facing this country--problems of job 
creation, deficit reduction, education--that need our collective 
energy. To divide Americans one from the other is not only 
counterproductive, it is irresponsible.
 and I submit irresponsible debate. Affirmative action is about 
opportunity, and affirmative action is about giving our country the 
ability to compete in the world economy, in this world marketplace on 
an equal par and with the capacity to tap the talents of 100 percent of 
the people of this country.

  As our country is able to tap the talents of 100 percent, we grow 
stronger as a nation and we are better able to participate and to 
compete. To close that door to, put cement on the glass ceiling at this 
point in time, it seems to me, turns this country in the absolute wrong 
direction and will put us on a course that I hate frankly to imagine.
  I hope that over the months as we discuss this issue that people who 
care about it will, one, focus in on the fact and, two, hear the voices 
of reason coming from the America's heartland. We all stand to gain 
from the wisdom of people who are out in the real world trying to make 
our country work as one America.
  If any objective should command our complete consensus, it is 
ensuring that every American has a chance to succeed. And in any event, 
the facts will not support tagging blacks and other minorities with any 
failures of affirmative action programs.
  Mr. President, I will close on a note of caution from the Peoria 
Journal Star:

       There are fewer threats to the Nation's future that a wide 
     divide between angry whites and disenfranchised blacks.

  Those who would seek to enlarge that divide by using affirmative 
action as a racial ``wedge'' issue may score short-term political 
points; but they do so at the expense of America's long-term future. 
Before we travel down that road, I urge everyone to consider the voices 
of reason coming from America's heartland. We all stand to gain from 
their wisdom.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Peoria Journal Star, Mar. 12, 1995]

Toward a Middle Ground: Rethink Affirmative Action, But Don't Kill It; 
                         Issue Demands Caution

       Call it the revenge of the angry white guys.
       Claiming white males denied access to a janitorial training 
     program, the United States Justice Department last week sued 
     Illinois State University. ISU President Thomas Wallace 
     responded that the program has been set up to integrate a 
     largely white, male work force. White men weren't precluded 
     from joining, Wallace said. But the Justice Department 
     alleges none were among the 60 people trained and hired 
     between 1987 and 1991.
       It's not often lately that the feds have gone to bat for 
     white guys, especially those who allege they are being denied 
     an opportunity to become janitors because of gender or skin 
     color. Before affirmative action sought to put the power of 
     programming behind the pledge of opportunity, most of the 
     positions that paid Buick-buying money went to white men. Why 
     would they mind if custodial jobs went to blacks?
       We have come not quite full-circle in the 30 years since 
     President Lyndon B. Johnson committed the country to 
     guaranteeing black Americans ``not just equality as a right . 
     . . but equality as a fact.'' What followed was a host of 
     federal programs--the Library of Congress lists 160--which 
     seek to increase the number of minorities and women in 
     college and medical school, behind jackhammers and at the 
     kneehole side of vice-presidential desks. That it did, though 
     imperfectly (women benefited more fully than blacks) and with 
     fallout.
       The fallout is the growing resentment of whites. Only a few 
     take their cases to court: the Colorado contractor who lost a 
     federal highway job to a minority firm which submitted a 
     lower bid and the white schoolteacher, hired on the same day 
     as a black, who was laid off when her employer opted for 
     diversity over a coin-toss.
       More often, white males who believe they've been victimized 
     take their cases to their buddies: They can't get hired, they 
     can't get into law school, they don't have a shot at a 
     promotion because they are being discriminated against. But 
     with some notable exceptions, it's not the best case. For the 
     work force, especially at higher reaches and in the 
     professions, remains predominantly white and largely male.
       ``Everyone still believes the government is forcing 
     businesses to hire minorities--it's not,'' says Clarence 
     Brown, Bradley University's personnel director. ``At every 
     workshop somebody brings that up. We say look around you, and 
     in most of them there are no minorities at all and most of 
     the people there are white males.''
       Yet most employers and universities do make special efforts 
     to make their offices and their student bodies look more like 
     America.
       A half-dozen area employers and educators contacted over 
     the last week said they do so not because federal regulators 
     are on their backs, but because it's in their interest. In 
     some circumstances and with some individuals, a black cop or 
     teacher can be more
      effective than a white one. A rape victim may be more 
     willing to tell her story to a female reporter. A Hispanic 
     salesman may be better able to reach that market. It's not 
     just black students who benefit from attending Bradley; 
     whites are more fully educated--wiser, if you will--for 
     having black classmates and roommates.
       A colorblind society, free from all discrimination, is a 
     wonderful goal, but it's not the reality. And so most of 
     those questioned say they'd remain committed to the wisdom of 
     diversity, in the absence of legislation. That's one of the 
     arguments made by those who call for dismantling federal 
     affirmative action programs.
       But it's also an argument that ends up running in circles. 
     To wit: Race and sex should not be considered. Laws that 
     require their consideration should be repealed. Without laws, 
     employers and institutions will continue their voluntary 
     efforts to attract more minorities because a diverse work 
     force is in their interest. Hence, race and sex will be 
     considered--and all those white guys who think that's why 
     they failed to get hired or promoted will be angry still.
       The other possibility is that ending federal affirmative 
     action mandates will make our workplaces and campuses look 
     more Germanic than American. The commitment to minority 
     recruiting will fade as time passes. Blacks shackled by poor 
     schools and single-parent families will be more disadvantaged 
     than they already are in competition for spots in good 
     colleges, necessary to put them in competition for good jobs. 
     Minorities and women who would be otherwise competitive will 
     run up against the good-old-boys network and the human 
     tendency toward the familiar--to give the job to somebody who 
     looks and thinks as you do. There will be fewer black doctors 
     and business executives and teachers.
       All this is a long-winded way of saying that affirmative 
     action is an extraordinarily complex and explosive issue. 
     It's admirable that we want to be a society free of racial or 
     sexual bias, but we are not. What to do about that remains a 
     huge and divisive issue.
       A story in this newspaper a couple of weeks ago reported 
     that President Clinton had decided to review all affirmative 
     action plans to search for a middle ground: ``Affirmative 
     action review carries a no-win risk,'' read the headline. Yet 
     a compelling case can be made for an effort to find a middle 
     ground on this issue.
       The House began last month by repealing legislation that 
     granted tax breaks for companies that sell broadcast stations 
     to minorities. No sound argument could be made for filling 
     the pockets of rich white men so blacks could get into 
     broadcast. Minority set-asides deserve a look; so do bidding 
     rules that result in more expensive contracts because race or 
     gender offset a low bid.
        [[Page S5293]] But it would be a mistake to abandon the 
     broad commitment to act affirmatively to make for a more 
     inclusive America: to recruit, to recognize the value in 
     diversity, to provide more opportunities to those, regardless 
     of sex or color, who have too little from the moment of 
     birth. There are fewer threats to the nation's future than a 
     wide divide between angry whites and disenfranchised-blacks. 
     If ever an issue demanded a middle ground, free of reckless 
     passion, this is it.

  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I 
appreciate hearing her remarks, particularly on affirmative action.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I my speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________