[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5894-H5895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          THE ADARAND DECISION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am responding, I believe, to what has 
been over the last 24 hours for many of us a deadening silence.
  The good news is that let me welcome those who have come to the White 
House Council on Small Business, the first time since 1960, having the 
opportunity to interact with many of those delegates and seeing the 
enthusiasm they now express in terms of the many issues of small 
business in this Nation. They have come to emphasize the importance of 
their contribution to the economic life of this country. They have 
likewise made a very strong point of how diverse the small business 
community is, including women and Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, 
and others who have found the American dream through small business.
  Particularly the delegation from Texas cited their concern and their 
desire for a bipartisan effort in treating some of the many concerns 
that small businesses have, whether or not it has to do with a one-stop 
facility to engage or facilitate their access to Government agencies, 
which I support and welcome the first U.S. general store that will be 
sited in the city of Houston to be in the 18th Congressional District. 
Certainly they have talked about Government regulation.
  But one of the things that caused the deadening silence and what also 
brought me a great deal of joy to hear a bipartisan approach from the 
small business owners, was the decision by the Supreme Court on Adarand 
that was rendered yesterday, on June 12, 1995. If one would take a look 
at the headlines of national newspapers across this Nation, it seemed 
that there was further joy from editors and writers to claim 
affirmative action dead. How positive it was, however, to her from 
these small business owners and to realize the energy that was fostered 
at their sessions today when they came together and resoundingly 
supported opportunity for all.
  Contrary to the spin that is being put on this ruling of Adarand, 
this particular decision does not dismantle Federal affirmative action 
programs. In fact, what it does is it throws us back to Crowson, a case 
that was rendered a number of years ago, and many local and State 
governments have already proceeded under, which requires a disparity 
study on affirming the fact frankly that racism still exists in this 
[[Page H5895]] Nation. It does require a strict scrutiny test, one that 
causes one to look more closely at the kind of program that might be 
offered. In fact, I think the precise language might read that it 
requires a more searching examination.
  Then, of course, it talks about the equal protection clause. But the 
real danger that we face as the Adarand decision continues to be 
editorialized and spoken about is those that would raise it up as a new 
day in America. I thought that we were a Nation of equals and those who 
would offer to help individuals who have yet to face and receive equal 
opportunity and the American dream. And yet we find those who are 
poised for the election in 1996, we find my Republican colleagues, all 
claiming in the name of Dr. Martin Luther King and the dream that they 
too believe in equal opportunity.
  I would ask a simple question, even though these are private sector 
preferences, where are they when universities prefer those with 
athletic talents and give athletic scholarships? Where are they when 
the
 ivy league schools select the children of alumni to be admitted into 
their institution? Where are they when schools are out looking for 
musicians or people who can stand on their head and balance balls three 
times? Those are preferences.

  But let me share with you, there are no quotas and preferences. They 
were made illegal some years ago. There are goals, of which we aspire 
to, and someone had the gall, if you will, to suggest the 10-percent 
set-aside locks in the Federal Government and discriminates against 
those who cannot comply under those particular set-asides.
  I am here to tell you that the set-asides may be 10 percent, but the 
actuality may be barely 1 percent in terms of minority businesses and 
women businesses who are receiving contracts under several programs 
under the Federal Government.
  I, too, stand here welcoming the diversity of this Nation, but as 
well the equality of this Nation. I would simply say that it is time 
now, Mr. Speaker, not to run away from this issue of equality and 
diversity. Look at the Adarand decision as it has been presented to us 
simply as a hurdle to cross, and not a death knell, an elimination for 
opportunity for all of our citizens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. GRAHAM addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]


                          ____________________