[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6650-H6654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON REDISTRICTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12th, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 
a period of time not to extend beyond midnight, as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to talk about a 
decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court today. I find it 
very ironic that the Supreme Court would rule in a case that affects 
the District, the 11th District of Georgia, to be unconstitutional, and 
it is ironic that we stand at a time in our history that we are trying 
to bring about a color blind society. We are trying to bring about a 
democracy to represent all of the people, and the Supreme Court ruled 
today that the 11th District of Georgia is unconstitutional, and ruled 
that the Fourth Congressional District, the district which I represent, 
did not rule on that district at all, simply because the plaintiffs in 
that case did not have standing.
  Tonight I wanted to take just a moment to talk about some of the 
districts that are majority districts across this country that look 
just as irregular as the majority minority districts in this country, 
and try to give some sense of understanding as to why would courts and 
why would people across America, even entertain the thought that 
districts, simply because of their shape and simply because of their 
appearance, are unconstitutional. 

[[Page H 6651]]

  I wanted to start by talking about the Fourth Congressional District 
in Louisiana, the district which I represent. Mr. Speaker, I represent 
a district that is a very diverse district. The district that I 
represent is in fact the district of the future. It is a district that 
is comprised of about 55 percent African-Americans and about 45 percent 
are white citizens. Therefore, this district in my opinion is a very 
diverse district, and it really bothers me tonight that the Supreme 
Court would even consider striking down a district that is as diverse 
as the district that I represent.
  If you look at the shape of the Fourth Congressional District in 
Louisiana, one may say on its face it is irregular. One may say that it 
looks somewhat different from the form, because it does move from the 
northern part of the State of Louisiana, to those who are not familiar 
with the Fourth
 Congressional District. This district moves from the northern part of 
Louisiana, which is the Shreveport-Bossier area, and then it goes down 
to the more southern part of the State, which goes a little bit past 
Baton Rouge and goes into St. James Parish.

  This district in my opinion is a pretty nice looking district. Most 
people when they look at this district on a map, they say, that is an 
irregular-shaped district. It looks bad, it looks bizarre and it ought 
to be unconstitutional, and it ought to be unconstitutional because it 
is a majority black district, and why would anybody in their right mind 
draw a district like that? However, when you really look at the facts 
of the matter, Mr. Speaker, you see that many districts all across this 
country look the same and look just like the Fourth Congressional 
District of Louisiana.
  For example, if you take the Fourth Congressional District of 
Tennessee, which was created in 1990, this district, Mr. Speaker, is 96 
percent majority, 96 percent white. This district is not under attack 
tonight, it probably will not be under attack tomorrow, and probably 
will not be under attack in the future of this country.
  I often wonder, why would one allege that the Fourth Congressional 
District and the 11th Congressional District of the State of Georgia 
are unconstitutional because they look irregular and the majority of 
the voters in those particular districts are black.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia.
  Ms. McKINNEY. If one had a pejorative perspective about this kind of 
district, one could say it looks like Batman spreading his wings.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Without question. If you look at the Fourth 
Congressional District from Tennessee and the Fourth Congressional 
District of Louisiana--as a matter of fact, I am going to try to see if 
I can put the two districts side by side. I mean these two districts, 
if you look at the two districts side by side, you see that these two 
districts do not look too much different from each other. I mean, this 
is the Fourth Congressional District. The only difference is this 
district is much more diverse than the 11th Congressional District
 in Tennessee. This district in Tennessee is 96 percent white; this 
district is 45 percent white, 55 percent black. The only difference is, 
if you want to look at it from an appearance perspective, is this 
district is more diverse than the Fourth Congressional District in 
Tennessee, and it amazes me tonight that this district would be in 
question as an unconstitutional district simply because it is majority 
minority.

  Ms. McKINNEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, during the 
reapportionment process, as you know, you were part of the Louisiana 
Legislature, I was a part of the Georgia Legislature, and people would 
go and look at these maps on the wall and they would try and affix the 
names and shapes and all kinds of pejorative terms to these districts 
that were majority minority.
  However, I am astounded to see, and this is my first time seeing 
this, the Fourth District in Tennessee that looks--I mean if I wanted 
to be pejorative, I would call it all kinds of names, too. However, 
that is not what we are about. Was this an effective district in 
electing someone to represent the people of Tennessee?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Without question, and I am glad the 
gentlewoman makes that distinction. I mean, I am certainly not being 
critical of the Fourth District of Tennessee. I feel it is a beautiful 
district, because first of all, it is not a beauty contest we are in 
today in terms of determining how districts look, because none of them 
look like perfect squares and perfect circles, they all look like 
animal cookies, if you really want to know the truth.
  The fact of the matter is this district encompasses urban and rural 
Tennessee, I mean it moves to Kentucky, so when people talk about the 
Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana and other majority minority 
districts in this country, they ought to look at some of the majority 
districts in this country and see that those districts are no better 
than the majority minority.
  Ms. McKINNEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
they call them monstrosities, they call them sprawling, they call them 
all kinds of names, and here we see that we have white districts that 
can also be termed as sprawling and huge and monstrosities of districts 
as well. Districts are districts. The bottom line is do they elect 
competent people to represent the people of the area of these 
districts, just as the Fourth District of Louisiana works.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. That is right. This in my opinion is very 
much constitutional, it should stand in any court of law. No one should 
challenge this district, because this district was the district that 
was drawn by the State legislature in the State of Tennessee, and it 
ought to be upheld and not challenged.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to applaud the gentlewoman 
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Fields] for their hard work in this matter, and simply cite to both of 
you the dissenting opinion of Stevens that really said what you have 
just said.
  Justice Ginsberg, according to Stevens, has explained why the 
district court's opinion on the merits was erroneous, and why this 
court's law-changing decision will breed unproductive litigation. He 
joined in the opinion without reservation.
  This decision will result in unproductive litigation, because there 
are districts all over the Nation that have varying shapes. Why should 
anyone want to open up a Pandora's box of challenging all of those 
districts, of which people are pleased with their representation and 
comfortable with their representation. He added and said that he 
believes that the respondents of these cases, like the respondents in 
the United States versus Hayes, have not suffered any legally 
cognisable injury, that these people have not been hurt.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield.
  Are you suggesting then that a Pandora's box has been opened, and so 
now we see that districts that are a majority black and majority 
minority across this country have been subjected to lawsuits, so we 
could also now find the majority white districts that look like this, 
drawn on the basis of race, also subjected to lawsuits?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Well if the gentleman would continue to yield as 
well, let me say that I can only read the plain black and white 
language here of the court. Justice Ginsberg, who answers that question 
yes, by saying that this law-changing decision that was offered today 
will breed unproductive litigation. If these are examples of districts 
across the Nation, which by the way, we have not heard a rising up of 
constituents in these different districts who happen to be, I believe, 
satisfied with their representative, which is what this Congress is 
about, a representative body. It appears to me that even the court 
believes that now we have opened to the world that if one person in the 
corner of that district or in the corner of a district in Montana or 
South Dakota or Michigan feels that they have a funny shape, but have 
not been denied representation, it appears that we have the Supreme 
Court, at least in the dissent by a very able Justice Ginsberg saying, 
yes, we have opened up this legal system to unproductive litigation 
with this decision today.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentlewoman a 


[[Page H 6652]]
few questions. I am going to place on the top of district No. 4 
district No. 11, which is the district that the court ruled as being an 
unconstitutional district, the 11th District of Georgia. From an 
appearance perspective, would the gentlewoman agree with me that both 
of these districts
 pretty much look irregular, if you want to use the term irregular?

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, someone would say in the eyes of beholder. I think that there 
would be the reception by many who looked at that and said yes, on both 
of those districts.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, in my eyes that is the most beautiful 
district in the State of Georgia.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Let me ask the gentlewoman another question.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I understand.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Let me present another scenario to the 
gentlewoman. If I would suggest to the gentlewoman that this district 
is 60 percent black and 40 percent white, and this district is 96 
percent white and 4 percent black, which of the two districts would the 
gentlewoman suggest would be the most diverse district?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Obviously, the top district that you have, the 11th 
District of Georgia, and as well, I would imagine that you might be 
able to point out several communities of interest in that district.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I would ask the gentlewoman, which would be 
the most segregated districts of the two?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, it would certainly seem to be the last 
one, which is, I believe, the fourth district.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. So if this district would be declared 
unconstitutional and segregate voters, then one would have to just make 
the fair assumption that this district would have to follow under the 
same rules and regulations; would you not agree to that?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I think what that does is absolutely affirms the 
comments made by Justice Ginsberg which say, you have now then opened a 
door to lawsuits all over this country, for districts all over this 
country.

                              {time}  2315

  And I frankly think this is not what the American people want. They 
want to be able to elect a Representative of their choosing. They want 
to be assured that that Representative will represent them and their 
interests. I do not think they want to find themselves in courthouses 
across this Nation challenging districts on the basis of shape.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I would also suggest that the American people do not 
want a second occurrence of the situation that occurred after 
reconstruction. And that is that the American people do not want the 
elected Representatives of the people of choice, of color, expelled 
because of their color.
  But it appears to me that if we are not careful that is where we 
could end up. Tens, hundreds, thousands, of city council people, school 
board members, county commissioners, legislators, Members of Congress 
expelled for no other reason than the color of their skin. Is that the 
future that we want for this country? And is that the kind of democracy 
that we are supposed to be marching toward?
  I think this Supreme Court decision has done a tremendous disservice 
to the people of this country, because instead of moving forward 
together, now we have the real chance of moving backwards.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I think the gentlewoman makes a very good 
point. One of the problems that we have in this country is how we 
integrate the institutions of power, the institutions that make 
decisions. How do we integrate this institution that we call the U.S. 
Congress, the House of Representatives?
  You know, in one State, when one uses the term House of 
Representatives it connotes representatives of the people. I just have 
the view that when one puts a mirror in front of the U.S. House of 
Representatives it ought to represent to some degree the citizens of 
the United States of America. And if the court continues to go on the 
trend it is going on today, it is going to eliminate many of the 
majority-minority districts in this Congress, which means that you 
would not be able to see the kind of
 representation in this Congress that you see outside of this Congress, 
and that is among the American people.

  I think it is encouraging to see Hispanics in the U.S. Congress and 
African-Americans and women in the U.S. Congress. I think that is what 
representation is all about. but we are clearly going to have a problem 
in obtaining a good representation of this country right here in the 
Halls of Congress if we continue to eliminate districts like the 
district from Georgia and other districts that are majority-minority 
districts.
  I want the gentlewoman to bear with me a moment. I have a few more 
maps I want to show here, because this is, in my opinion, very 
important.
  I am now placing on the easel the Third Congressional District from 
the State of Tennessee, which was created in 1990. This district is 87 
percent majority.
  Now, if the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, which is 60 
percent minority, is unconstitutional, I can't see much difference 
between the 11th Congressional in Tennessee, other than this district 
is much more diverse than the Third Congressional District in 
Tennessee.
  So I just think the Court is about to open up the floodgates of 
litigation as the gentlewoman knows, if they continue to go on the this 
trend of judging districts based on their appearance and not judging 
districts based on any real constitutional standard. Because none of 
these districts can win a beauty contest, and I do not think that is 
the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, and I do not think there is 
anything in the Constitution of the United States of America that says 
that a district must look a certain way.
  I just find it ironic that the United States Supreme Court will take 
the amendment that was used to protect minority voters, the 14th 
amendment of the Constitution and the equal protection clause, and 
instead of using that as a shield to continue to protect minority 
voters, they use it as a award to insure the. I just find that to be 
hard to believe today, that the court would make that kind of ruling
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia.
  Ms. McKINNEY. You know, we are talking about beauty contests, but the 
beauty of these districts is that they provide effective representation 
for the people who reside in them. And I know that we perhaps would not 
have even had to have an 11th Congressional District of Georgia as a 
majority-minority district had the residents of the district been 
properly taken care of when they had other representation.
  But you can immediately ride into the 11th District and know that you 
have crossed some kind of threshold, where you have people who live in 
homes without running water, you have people who are suffering from 
environmental contamination and dying, you have people who still have 
their voting rights violated in 1994 and 1995.
  We cross some kind of time threshold, we cross some kind of 
socioeconomic threshold, we cross a neglect threshold. And now, for the 
first time, particularly in Georgia, outside of the city of Atlanta, 
people have a strong voice fighting for them, providing some relief 
from their suffering.
  And the Supreme Court now says that that is unconstitutional. The 
question, I guess, is not what about Cynthia Mckinney, but what about 
those people? Because Cynthia McKinney may be gone, but the problems 
that those people have to endure day after day as they mete out a 
meager existence will endure. What is going to happen to those people? 
Who will serve those people? I do not have lobbyists coming into my 
office asking me to please provide running water for the people who do 
not have running water in their homes in your district, Cynthia.
  The lobbyists come by and they have their hands out and they re 
asking for government largess, but it is not on behalf of the people 
who are in need. I was sent here by the people who are in need, and I 
do my darnedest to represent them, as I know you do, and 

[[Page H 6653]]
that is the appropriate balance in this place; that is the appropriate 
balance for government, that we have all of the people who are in need 
and all of the various needs represented. And their in the marketplace 
of political ideas they clash and their values assume a certain kind of 
value, and some win and some lose, some come out on top, but everybody 
should not always have to come out on the bottom all the time.
  That is what these districts were designed to prevent. That is why I 
believe all of these districts
 are beautiful districts.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for that analogy. I 
mean the gentlewoman has done such a great job here in this Congress 
for the people that she represents back in Georgia and it would be 
just, in my opinion, a big calamity for the many people in Georgia to 
lose a Representative like you.
  That is why the point of shape should be such a nonfactor, to even 
opine a thought that a gentlewoman like you might not be able to serve 
in this body simply because the district looks a certain way. In my 
opinion, I agree with you, I think the district is absolutely 
beautiful. First of all, there is no constitutional standard for 
beauty. I have read through and through the Constitution and I have not 
seen any beauty contest requirement for the shape of a district. One of 
the reasons for that is because the districts, I mean the States are 
not perfect squares and perfect circles.
  You take the State of Louisiana, for example, it is shaped like a 
boot. So you cannot get a perfect district out of the State of 
Louisiana when the State itself does not, is not a perfect square or a 
perfect circle, but I think the State of Louisiana is a beautiful 
State.
  I take issue with anybody who would say the State of Louisiana is not 
a beautiful-looking State. I am proud of that boot shape of the State 
of Louisiana, because it is not how the shape of the State looks, it is 
what is within the State. We have great people within the State of 
Louisiana.
  Let me, if the gentlewoman would bear with me just for a moment, I 
know the gentlewoman has been up all night representing her 
constituents.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Two nights.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Two nights in a row on the floor of this 
House not being able to go to sleep, not one ounce.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Not 10 minutes of sleep.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Not 10 minutes and still on the floor 
tonight fighting for the damned, the doomed, the disenchanted, the 
have-nots, and I just want to commend the gentlewoman from Georgia for 
just being here, because she has often said the issue is not whether or 
not Cynthia McKinney will serve another day in Congress, but the issue 
is whether or not a person like Cynthia McKinney will have the 
opportunity to serve in Congress. These are not guaranteed districts, 
these are opportunity districts.
  I want the gentlewoman to look at the Sixth District of Chicago. This 
district is in existence today. This district is represented by a very 
able Member of this body. I would dare not say that this Member of 
Congress has not represented his constituents. This district is 
separated.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Discontinuity.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. This is not even contiguous. This district 
is separated not by water, not by some island, this district is 
separated by another district. If you look, another district, a 
congressional district actually runs in between this district and this 
little island here, which is a part of this district.
  Now, if this district, which is all contiguous, not one part of this 
district is noncontiguous, and this district, which is--let me give you 
the numbers of this district, 95.2 percent white.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Looks like that district could be subject to a lawsuit.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If this district here is unconstitutional 
according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then 
what do you think this district here is? You are talking about a 
district that is not even contiguous. There are three different islands 
on this district here, and this district here is certainly all intact 
and all contiguous.
  Ms. McKINNEY. What kind of mischief has the Supreme Court now made? 
Can you imagine the 50 States of the United States engaged in 
redistricting in the middle of the 10-year period? What kind of 
political chaos could result in something like that?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. It would be absolute disruption. It would 
open up the floodgates of litigation. It would be unmanageable. If 
every one citizen in America who feels that their district does not 
look a certain way and will not pass any beauty contest runs to the 
courthouse and files a lawsuit, we are going to be dealing with this 
issue of reapportionment for a long period of time.
  That is why I think the courts must be very careful when they come 
down on these districts simply because they are majority-minority, one; 
and, two, they do not look a certain way and do not pass the course of 
beauty contests and fail to look at all these districts that are 
majority-majority districts,
 that do not look a certain way and do not fit into a perfect square, 
in a perfect box scenario or syndrome. Those districts which are 
overwhelmingly one race and not diverse, like these districts that the 
courts are making, calling unconstitutional, have to be subject to the 
same kind of scrutiny that these districts are subject to.

  I only have three more districts I would like to share with the 
gentlewoman because I know it is getting late in the hour.
  Ms. McKINNEY. But you know, Congressman, I would also like to say 
something about this notion about districts are supposed to look a 
certain way, people are supposed to look a certain way. I have had a 
particular problem since I have been elected because I do not quite 
look the way most Members of Congress are supposed to look. Security 
guards stop me, elevator operators stop me, you name it, I have 
problems. I was stopped even last week because I do not look the way 
some folks think a Member of Congress is supposed to look.
  When we start judging by how we think folks are supposed to look or 
things are supposed to look, and then discriminating against them based 
on the fact that that does not quite look like what we think it ought 
to look like, the stereotype we have in our minds, then we really are 
engaging in something else that is very harmful, and that is what we 
want to avoid as well.
  So there is some preconceived idea, I guess, that a good district is 
a circular district, or maybe it is a square district, but it certainly 
cannot look like that district and be a good district. It can look like 
that district if it produces somebody who looks like the way a Member 
of Congress is supposed to look, but if that district produces somebody 
who looks like me and says I do not look like the kind of person who 
ought to be walking the Halls of Congress as a Member of Congress, then 
something is wrong with the district. Highly suspect reasoning.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I would like to share with the gentlewoman 
just three more maps. I want to thank her for her patience. While we 
talk about appearance, I would like to share with the gentlewoman the 
14th Congressional District of Texas.
  This was a 1920's. You can see that that district was not contiguous. 
It had an island, and that was not because of water, it was because 
another district actually ran between that district, and this district 
was actually created to disenfranchise minority groups. It was 
gerrymandered for the purpose of excluding minority groups, Hispanics 
and blacks, so that they would not be empowered and so that they would 
not be the majority, so that they could not elect a candidate of their 
choice.
  The courts saw absolutely nothing wrong with this district. Citizens 
did not file complaints, of course. But it just goes to show you how 
districts that look just like districts that are being declared 
unconstitutional are suspect, and the Supreme Court was very much 
constitutional in the past and in fact in the present.
  Now this next district I am about to show the gentlewoman is probably 
the one that I have the most fun with, to be quite honest with you, 
because if the 11th District of Georgia is irregular, according to the 
courts, then I would like to know what you call this district. Now, 
this is the Sixth District of Texas, Dallas, TX. This is one district 
and no one has filed a lawsuit in 

[[Page H 6654]]
this district. Why? Because this district is not a majority-minority 
district. It is not Hispanic, it is not black. So I guess it is 
constitutional. But this district runs all over the place. I mean, they 
criticize a district in Louisiana saying it is only so wide. They 
criticize a district, the 12th Congressional District in North 
Carolina, represented by a very able Member of Congress, Mr. Watt. They 
said his district is as wide as an interstate. How wide is this 
district at certain points?
  Now, let us do a comparison test. Let us do a little beauty contest. 
This is the district that was declared by the Supreme Court in its 
infinite wisdom as being unconstitutional, the 11th District of 
Georgia, which is at the top, and there is the Sixth District of Texas 
at the bottom. Now, you tell me which district in your opinion, if you 
want to talk beauty. There is a portion of this district that is not 
even contiguous. As a matter of fact, there are three or four portions 
of this district that are not contiguous. Take this portion here which 
is not contiguous. This little island over here to the left is not 
contiguous.
  It just goes to show you you cannot develop an appearance standard to 
determine the constitutionality of a district.
  The last district, which is probably the district that started this 
whole term gerrymandering, is a district of Massachusetts. A very able 
member of this body, a person who works very hard, represents the 
Fourth Congressional District of Massachusetts. This district is the 
real district because it comes from the State that brought about the 
term gerrymander as a result of their great Governor at that time. This 
district is not under challenge. It is not a majority-minority 
district; it is a majority-majority district. A very able member of 
this body represents this district, represents his constituents well, 
and no one asks questions about the constitutionality of this district. 
It is just suspect to me that only districts that appear to be 
unconstitutional are districts that are majority-minority.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Based on shape.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Just the other day in New York, I forgot 
what congressional district, but it is represented by a very able 
female member of this Congress.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Absolutely.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A Hispanic district.
  Ms. McKINNEY. The Nation's first Puerto Rican American Congresswoman.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. First Puerto Rican American Congresswoman 
walking into the halls of Congress, now being challenged because her 
district looks a certain way, and it is majority Hispanic.
  I just thought we would take a few minutes tonight to talk about 
this. And I also wanted to tell you how much your leadership has meant 
to this body and will continue to mean to this body. Because I 
certainly have no plans of the gentlewoman leaving this body. But it 
really hurts me to my heart to know that the Supreme Court would rule 
that this beautiful district, this beautiful district, and to show you 
just how beautiful this district is, this absolute perfect beautiful 
district would be declared as an unconstitutional gerrymander, and this 
district here goes untouched. I want you to know that the people of 
Savannah and the people of all parts of Georgia who are under your 
great leadership, you know, have nothing to be ashamed of, and they 
ought to stick their chests out and be proud of the fact that they are 
members of this beautiful district.
  I do not know what will happen in the future, but people like you are 
the kind of people that this country needs to make this country really 
project what it talks about on a day-to-day basis and even tries to get 
other countries to talk about, and that is democracy. Because now when 
we put a mirror in front of this Congress and we see a Congresswoman, a 
gentlewoman like you, then there are people all across America who can 
poke their chests out and say I am proud to be an American and I am 
proud to be in America because our Congress, our House of 
Representatives, is inclusive and not exclusive.
  On a closing note, while people talk about the number of minority 
Members who are now Members of Congress and they talk about this uproar 
and this increase in numbers, there are only 40 black Members in the 
whole U.S. Congress, not the House of Representatives, mind you, but in 
the entire U.S. Congress. That is the House and the Senate.
  Ms. McKINNEY. There are 535 Members.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. There are 535 House and Senate Members, and 
of the 535 House and Senate Members, there are only 40 blacks. For 
anyone to even opine the thought that these Members are here because 
they were guaranteed some safety or were guaranteed seats, is 
absolutely wrong. The only thing they were guaranteed was an 
opportunity, and that was an opportunity to be able to plead their case 
before voters in the most diverse districts in the whole United States 
of America.
                              {time}  2340

  And it really frightens me today that this court would find the most 
diverse district in the country as a district that may be 
unconstitutional, and it really falls square. I mean, it just falls 
square on the shoulders and slaps the Voting Rights Act in its face, 
and it also slaps those people who have worked so hard, those people 
who have worked so hard to fight for the passage of the Voting Rights 
Act, people like Martin Luther King, people like Thurgood Marshall and 
people like President Kennedy, I mean, people who just gave it all to 
make sure that this Congress would reflect this country.
  And I want to thank the gentlewoman for her willingness to come here 
tonight after being up for 2 nights in row and standing on the floor of 
this House and talking about a significant issue like reapportionment.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this very 
important issue, and I would also just like to commend you for being 
able to prevail in such a dark period of uncertainty when I know all of 
the clouds of doubt and sometimes a little bit of disappointment were 
trying to rain on your parade, but you were able to keep your head up 
high, maintain your dignity and continue to function, lead in this 
body. I appreciate your leadership. I appreciate your leadership on 
this issue, and I certainly appreciate the enduring friendship that we 
will have as a result of our time here together.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman.
  

                          ____________________