[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13796-H13802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       INJUSTICE IN REDISTRICTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to at least make a 
statement about what we have heard over the last hour. I would just 
like to say that George Bush proclaimed a New World Order, but Bill 
Clinton is making one.
  Bosnia is not about war, it is about peace. In the ethnically diverse 
community of Dayton, OH, three warring ethnic groups came together, sat 
down at a table, and made peace. I really do not understand how people 
can advocate pouring billions of dollars into a defense establishment 
to make war, and at the same time they can deny sick kids Medicaid, 
they can raise taxes on the working poor, but they are not willing to 
make peace. I do not understand that.
  Also, I would just like to say a few words about an announcement that 
I heard about today, about the retirement of one of our leaders, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. I would just like to say 
that she is a trailblazer, a role model for all of us, and a real 
leader. Her leadership in the 105th Congress is sorely going to be 
missed. But because of her leadership I do not know how many Congresses 
before, she has made a way for me and other women who now serve in 
Congress, and her outspokenness on issues affecting families and 
children and women and men alike, really, has been really a beacon I 
guess, for all of us.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I thank her 
for the opportunity to join in paying tribute to our colleague, Pat 
Schroeder. It cannot be said better than you have done commending 
Representative Schroeder for her leadership. It is a sad day for us in 
the House of Representatives on the day that she announced she would 
not be seeking reelection.
  Whether they know it or not, women across America, and, as you say, 
indeed men too, owe Pat Schroeder a great debt of gratitude. Through 
her leadership on issues relating to families and children, she has 
changed the public policy in that regard. It is our most important 
issue in fact that we deal with here, the issue of children.
  But on this day in this House of Representatives, when on the one 
hand we are talking about the possibility of sending our young people 
to keep the peace in Bosnia, and at the same time we are talking about 
human rights throughout the world and talking about family and 
children, there is a person who served us here with great leadership, 
an articulate spokesperson for children, for human rights, for peace, 
and, at the same time, a strong, strong voice on the Committee on 
National Security, now called I think the Committee on National 
Security. So her expertise and her voice was heard across the spectrum 
of issues in our budget priorities. She has led us well. I hope she 
will continue to outside of Congress. I know she has plenty of 
wonderful options open to her, but, nonetheless, as happy as we are for 
her on her decision, it is a sad day.
  I speak for myself and my constituents when I say that her presence 
in this Congress for this country will be sorely missed.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say one thing. I would like 
for Congresswoman Schroeder to come to this floor and tell the story, 
because I know she can tell it much better than I would ever be able to 
tell it, but she came to this Congress at a time when you just did not 
have women serving on the Committee on National Security and women 
serving in this Congress. She tells the story of how the chairman had 
she and the gentleman from California, Ron Dellums, share a single 
chair. Those are the kinds of stories that this leader had to endure in 
order to make sure that I could get a full seat in the U.S. Congress. 
Her story is a wonderful story that needs to be told, and her 
leadership has benefited us all.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. If the gentlewoman will yield, I would just 
like to associate myself with those remarks about our leader. She has 
certainly been a role model for the women in Congress. Her leadership 
not only will be missed, but it is going to make our work extremely 
hard, because she has been just a Trojan for women's issues, for 
children's issues, and more national security issues. So this is truly 
a sad day for all of us.
  Ms. McKINNEY. It certainly is.

[[Page H 13797]]

  Mr. Speaker, changing our focus a little bit, I would like to ask a 
question, and the question is, what happens to a jogger, someone who 
strategizes, maps out a fitness routine, and the regime that is mapped 
out is done so that a target heart rate can be reached; and, 
unbeknownst, to our jogger, without any knowledge at all of our jogger, 
the wrong target heart rate has been given. Then the folks who gave the 
wrong heart rate allow the jogger to go out and jog. What happens? The 
jogger could die.
  The issue that I am about to talk about is a real issue of life and 
death, political life and political death. In my opinion, we have a few 
southerners who have conspired to orchestrate the political death of 
blacks, Latinos, and women. I have a transcript of a Florida hearing 
that just took place.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. It was a response to a pretrial hearing on 
Monday, October 19.
  Ms. McKINNEY. It reads, ``At the time the Degrande court drew the 
districting lines for the State of Florida, it engaged in a good faith 
effort to adopt a politically neutral redistricting plan that would 
enhance the voting opportunities for African-American and Hispanic 
voters. The Degrande court closely followed the dictates of the Voting 
Rights Act and traditional redistricting principles throughout this 
process. This court must now reexamine the redistricting lines drawn by 
plan 308 and decide whether the contours of District 3 are 
unconstitutional in light of Shaw versus Reno and Miller.''
  What this means is that in Florida the legislature did not draw the 
current congressional lines, the court did it, and when the court drew 
the lines, the court was operating in good faith, trying to do things 
that were beneficial to all of the people of the State of Florida. Now, 
because of what happened in North Carolina and what happened in 
Georgia, all of that is subject to change.
  Joining us is the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. But let me 
give you just a brief history.
  First of all, the Florida legislature could not pass a plan, so the 
courts had to intervene so that we could have elections in Florida. 
Now, there are many reasons why the Florida legislature could not pass 
a plan, but basically it was politics, politics, and more politics.

                              {time}  1800

  Everyone that was in charge of redistricting was running for 
Congress.
  It is hard to take the politics out of politics.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. You cannot take the politics out of politics.
  However, the courts drew the plan for Florida, and, basically, we are 
now at the stage where there was a ruling last Monday in that the 
courts ruled, with a dissent, that the Third Congressional District was 
racial gerrymandering but still could be constitutional, and we will go 
to a hearing or a trial early next year to determine based on Shaw 
versus Reno and the case of Georiga.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I have a question to ask the gentlewoman, before she 
gets into her remarks, and it is my understanding that her district, 
the district that she represents, is 50 percent black and 50 percent 
white.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. How can race be the predominant factor in a 50-50 
district?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Well, it is not quite 50-50. It is 50.1 or 2.
  Ms. McKINNEY. 50.1. So that makes it race-predominant.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Well, the fact is my district is one of the 
most integrated districts in Florida, if not in the country.
  Ms. McKINNEY. If not in the country.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. If not in the country. So race was a factor, 
but just one of many factors.
  In fact, I am very proud of the Third Congressional District of 
Florida. Many of the people I represent were disenfranchised before my 
election. If we go back and just look at the way the voter participates 
in these districts, for example when we come out of an area and we are 
getting 80 percent of the vote, black and white, what does that tell my 
colleagues? That tells me that there is balance in my district. I have 
one of the most Democratic districts in the State of Florida.
  Ms. McKINNEY. But the gentlewoman's district was challenged.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Challenged, that is correct, and we are headed 
to court.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I am sure that this is costing the taxpayers of Florida 
an inordinate amount of money.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. And time, and also the frustration on the 
people of the Third Congressional District. Often my constituents come 
to me and say what are they trying to do to our district? Why is it 
that the voters from the Third Congressional District and other 
districts in Florida have to wrestle with the question of whether or 
not we are going to have our district?
  Ms. McKINNEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] who served illustriously in the 
Florida legislature and probably knows more----
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. If I may ask the gentlewoman to yield just for 
a moment to let me say one thing about the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Mrs. Meek].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Certainly.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mrs. Meek served in the Florida House, but when 
she was elected some 13 years ago to the Florida Senate, it was the 
first time in over 100 years that we elected a black to the Florida 
Senate, and she was the first black female ever elected to the Senate. 
So we do not have a long history in Florida of inclusion.

  And, in fact, before our election in 1992, it was the first time in 
over 100 years, I am sorry, 120 years, that an African-American came to 
this Congress to represent Florida, even though Florida's population, 
as far as minorities is concerned, is over 40 percent. Good-old-boy 
politics has controlled how the districts have been drawn throughout 
Florida.
  I do not know about any other place, but I can tell my colleagues 
about the history of Florida, and I know the gentlewoman from Georgia 
wants to yield to Mrs. Meek.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues and 
compliment and commend them for having called this special order to 
talk to the country about some of the things that have happened in 
reapportionment.
  I am reminded of a saying that the more things change, the more they 
remain the same. The gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] has been 
on the forefront of this, and so has the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Brown] but I want to say to them that it is just amazing and also 
ironic that after all of these years we are still fighting for the same 
thing that many had to fight for years ago.
  I need to say to my two colleagues that their efforts will be 
rewarded, as well as all the rest of us. We must raise the 
consciousness level of the country as to what is happening in the 
reapportionment and apportionment fight. As everyone knows, every 10 
years the census is taken, and then comes the reappointment process.
  I am reminded of the struggle that I have undertaken in this for 10 
or more years, and I am reminded of what the poet, Robert Frost, once 
wrote about; these woods are lovely, dark and deep, and I am tempted to 
sleep; but I have promises to keep, promises to keep, and miles to go 
before I sleep.
  That is what has happened to my colleagues here. They know this has 
been a fight from the very beginning. I can recall when I went to the 
Florida legislature in 1979. There were only two blacks in the Florida 
legislature, and they were certainly not treated, Ms. McKinney, the way 
we are treated today. They were treated as blacks, and they pretty much 
were isolated from the other people there.
  When I went, in 1979, I was able to participate in the 
reapportionment of the Florida legislature, and because of that we were 
able to bring on Ms. Brown and all of my other colleagues who came 
after me.
  Ms. McKINNEY. If the gentlewoman would allow me to reclaim my time 
for a moment. The tool that the gentlewoman used was the Voting Rights 
Act.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Yes, I did, and it was under attack even then. 
The most amazing thing is that we were able to bring Ms. Brown and five 
other people there in the House but we were unable to get a 
congressional seat. We had the numbers then. There were 

[[Page H 13798]]
enough African-American inhabitants in the population of Florida, but 
my colleagues would be surprised to know that every congressperson from 
this body, from Florida, had either a paid consultant or someone there 
to be sure that their influence could be felt in the reapportionment 
process.
  Ms. McKINNEY. So, actually, what the gentlewoman is saying is that 
the Members of Congress and the legislators were picking their voters 
before the voters had a chance to pick their representatives.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Absolutely. My colleagues would be surprised at 
how they utilized the black populace, in that they really fought hard 
to get the African-Americans, particularly the Democrats, because what 
they wanted to do was to be sure they had enough African-Americans in 
their district, in their congressional district, to be sure that they 
came back to Congress. Because, naturally, it was sort of traditional 
and fully accepted during that time that if an individual were black, 
they were Democrat and they would vote for a white Congressman who 
represented their district.

  I want to give my colleagues another example of what happened, and I 
am surprised that they are looking at the gentlewoman from Florida's 
district and talking about gerrymandering, because hers certainly is 
not nearly as gerrrymandered as the district that sent me to the 
Florida Senate. When I came from the house, I was on the 
reapportionment committee and I could see what was happening to us in 
the Florida house. I lived in Liberty City. My representative in the 
Florida Senate lived across Biscayne Bay, a body of water, all the way 
over on Miami Beach. He represented 103,000 African-Americans. Yes, he 
was our representative in the senate.
  It shows my colleagues that this gerrymandering, that I am a living 
example of what happens. So I insisted that that seat be removed from 
over on that side and we be given the representation that we so direly 
deserved and needed, and that is how I got to the Florida Senate, by 
doing what the gentlewoman from Georgia and the gentlewoman from 
Florida are doing now, fighting for the representation that I knew that 
we needed to have.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Congresswoman, there is an article here that I have 
from the Florida Times Union of November 24 where a noted political 
scientist from the University of Georgia is quoted as saying if a white 
Congressman has a 10-percent or 20-percent minority constituency, they 
might not have a person who votes 100 percent of the time with the 
black agenda but they will get those votes from him some of the time. 
So, apparently, representation some of the time is Ok.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. It was OK because what they were doing was 
using us as mayonnaise on the sandwich to be sure that they got a 
chance to come back to Congress instead of utilizing us and using us to 
represent us.
  I really feel very emotional about this situation, and to see now 
that my young sisters have picked up this battle and they are running 
hard and winning it, it just gives me such pleasure to see when the 
gentlewoman from Georgia and the gentlewoman from Florida stand up and 
talk about this.
  We did not have the technology available that my colleagues have now. 
I had to draw my maps with a piece of crayon to try to quickly show, 
because we were not allowed on the computers at that time, and the 
computers were just coming in, and they had these maps already drawn. 
But I think with the two of my colleagues, their maps and their legal 
representation, they have it all.
  Ms. McKINNEY. We have everything except the Supreme Court.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Everything but the Supreme Court, that is 
right.
  And what Mrs. Bethune would say, when she saw the kind of fight that 
the gentlewoman from Georgia and the gentlewoman from Florida have put 
up, she would say what hath God wrought. So God has wrought that these 
two sisters here would keep up this fight, which we have had all these 
years, and to stand here tonight and to see how the two of my 
colleagues are pushing forward to be sure that we do not get 
misrepresented again, and that the people that we represent will have 
representation in Congress and in the statehouses and all over this 
country.
  I have been in several legal fights for reapportionment, and even 
though I am a little beyond the age that these young women are, I 
expect to continue to do so. But it is good to be here in the Congress 
and to know that, Ms. McKinney, there are people in this country who 
know that the gentlewoman from Georgia and the gentlewoman from Florida 
and the rest of us have served notably here in the Congress, and it was 
not because of the color of our skin but the content of our character.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Oh, you are wonderful.
  We also know that this cold wind that has blown across the South did 
not start in Georgia and it did not stop in Florida. Actually, I think 
it probably started in North Carolina. And we have the subject of the 
North Carolina redistricting fight on the floor with us.
  And we also know that it swept through Texas, and we have the 
gentlewoman from Dallas with us; and we hope that Alabama will be 
spared, but we have the gentleman from Alabama with us, and I will 
yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
I thank and applaud the gentlewoman from Georgia and the gentlewoman 
from Florida for organizing this special order this evening so that we 
can highlight the issue of voting and the issue of democracy in this 
country, really.
  I came in when my colleagues were all paying tribute to our 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Pat Schroeder, who has 
indicated that she is not planning to run again after serving out this 
term, and I want to join with them first in paying a special tribute to 
her and join in expressing the sentiments that others have expressed, 
that she will be missed very much by those of us who have admired her 
and followed her lead on many issues.
  Second, I want to say that tomorrow, in Durham, NC, there is an 
opening of a traveling exhibition which is called ``The long road up 
the hill. African-Americans in Congress.'' I was on the phone before I 
came over here talking to a newspaper reporter in Raleigh-Durham about 
that exhibit, and I pulled out the press release that had been issued 
about that exhibit. It catalogs the history of African-Americans in the 
Congress of the United States, and I thought it might be helpful to 
take a minute or two, if the gentlewoman would allow me, to put this in 
a historical context.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I certainly will.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The gentlewoman says this hurricane 
started in North Carolina in 1993 or 1992. It really started in the 
South more than 100 years ago.

                              {time}  1815

  And I think we really need to keep that in perspective. So, if I 
could, let me talk a little bit about the historical context that we 
are dealing with.
  Between 1870 and 1897, after the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments had 
freed the slaves and granted them citizenship and the right to vote, 
Southern States actually elected 22 black men to Congress. And this is 
not a sexist thing. It just happened that all of them were men at that 
time. Some had been slaves; other had been born free. All of them, 
ironically, during that period from 1870 to 1897, were members of the 
Republican Party, which was the party at that time that most black 
people associated themselves with.
  In 1870, a black minister was tapped to fill Confederate President 
Jefferson Davis' unexpired Senate term. Hiram Revels of Mississippi 
became the first American of African descent to serve in the Senate. 
That same year, Joseph Rainey was sworn into office in the House of 
Representatives; Jefferson Long of Georgia was sworn into the House 1 
month later. Rainey went on to serve five terms, often speaking in 
favor of civil rights legislation, outlawing racial discrimination in 
juries, schools, public accommodations and transportation.

  Many of the early African-American Congressmen introduced bills 
calling for education and land ownership for blacks and removal of what 
was called cotton taxes. Most of those bills died in committee because 
their sponsors often lacked the support of their white colleagues. That 
might sound familiar to some of us in this day and time.
  During the chaotic Reconstruction years, defeated white politicians 
disputed the elections of blacks to Congress 21 times. So, this is not 
a new 

[[Page H 13799]]
phenomenon that we are dealing with. Congressmen whose elections were 
challenged often were not sworn in until a House committee had reviewed 
the evidence and found in their favor. Several black lawmakers were not 
seated for many months. Some were not sworn in until a short time 
before the end of their terms. Two duly elected Congressmen who were 
elected, black Congresspeople, never, ever got to serve.
  Finally, a story that I can relate to, by the time we got to the late 
1800's, there was only one black African-American left in the Congress 
of the United States. He was a gentleman from North Carolina. His name 
was George H. White, and he was the last former slave to serve in 
Congress. He took the oath of office in March 1897, and after an 
election in 1898, in which the evidence indicated that even in 
precincts where there were only 200 or 300 people registered, in some 
cases 700 or 800 people voted and he was voted out of office. He took 
to the floor of the House of Representatives in 1901 and made a 
historic speech in which he professed to be speaking on behalf of the 
outraged, heartbroken, bruised and bleeding, but God-fearing people. He 
went on to predict that some day, some day, black representatives would 
rise up and come again to this House of Representatives. That was in 
1901.
  His prophesy did not become a reality that we would have another 
black Representative in Congress until 28 years later. Mr. Speaker, 28 
years later.
  Ms. McKINNEY. But how many years from North Carolina did it take?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That was the next point I wanted to make. 
It was not until the gentlewoman from North Carolina Eva Clayton, my 
colleague, and I were elected in 1992, 91 years later, that an African-
American was elected to Congress from the State of North Carolina.
  So, the point I am making, and I will yield back to you all to carry 
this on, is this is not a new phenomenon. We have been fighting this 
battle since years and years and years ago, and we fought it in the 
face of literacy tests, where people were required to read and 
interpret documents before they were allowed to vote; grandfather 
clauses, which prohibited people from voting unless their grandfathers 
had voted, keeping freed slaves from casting ballots; poll taxes which 
kept poor people, blacks and whites alike, from voting; lynchings, 
which were flourishing throughout the South, and now in that historical 
context, the Supreme Court would ask us to be color-blind as a Nation 
and go back to a situation where we are absent minority representation 
in Congress.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Will the gentleman yield just for 1 minute?
  I have my horror story that I want to put in. Florida's horror story. 
At the time Josiah Wells was the first Member of Congress from Florida. 
He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1879 from 
Gainesville, FL. I represent Gainesville, FL, which is in the Third 
Congressional District. Josiah Wells' election was challenged and he 
lost his seat after only 2 months in office. However, by that time he 
had already been reelected to a new term. But listen, believe it or 
not, his next victorious election was challenged after the ballots were 
burned in the courthouse fire, ending the first congressional career of 
Florida's first black Representative. It took Florida 120 years to 
elect another African-American.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.
  Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in yet another round 
of reapportionment cases; it has an opportunity to end the mischief 
started in 1993 when it announced its decision in Shaw versus Reno. In 
the Shaw case, the Court ruled that white voters can state a claim 
under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment if they allege 
that a district is so irregular or bizarrely shaped that it could only 
be understood as a racial gerrymander. Last term, in reviewing a Shaw-
type attack on the congressional redistricting plan in Georgia, the 
Court went a step further. It ruled that where race is the predominate 
factor in redistricting that has resulted in the substantial disregard 
of traditional redistricting principles, then a district is presumed to 
be unconstitutional.
  When Shaw was first handed down, a number of civil rights groups and 
political observers felt that the decision would have minimal impact. 
But the Shaw decision has taken on a life of its own. Cases attacking 
congressional districts as alleged racial gerrymanders are pending in 
Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, State legislatures and local 
governments.
  Of course, it troubles me a great deal that the end result of all 
these cases may return us to the pre-voting rights days when the Halls 
of Congress were reserved for white males. In those days, congressional 
districts drawn to protect white incumbents, no matter how bizarre or 
irregular they looked, and regardless of the all-white racial 
composition, the districts were viewed as politics. Eliminating 
districts where minority voters comprise a bare majority of the voters 
will return us to the days of segregation when Congress resembled an 
all-white club.
  As troubling as all this is, I am equally concerned that the Supreme 
Court has refused to look at facts. The Court has consistently 
overlooked that in each of the States where the challenged majority 
minority districts were drawn, racially polarized voting patterns 
existed. What this means is that before the majority minority districts 
were drawn, a factual basis existed that minority voters were 
politically cohesive, that is, they supported minority candidates, and 
whites usually voted as a bloc to defeat the minority voters' preferred 
candidate. This is important because not only is the creation of 
majority minority districts necessary to overcome the effects of the 
white bloc vote, but the Supreme Court itself has consistently 
recognized in decisions spanning the last 20 years that such racial 
bloc voting has been the principal cause of minority vote dilution.
  What is especially troubling about this is that the Court seems to 
have accepted racial bloc voting as a fact of political life, but 
chooses to ignore the reality of its impact. Thus, in the Georgia case, 
the Court said that the deliberate creation of majority minority 
districts may increase the very patterns of racial bloc voting that 
majority minority districts are said to counteract. In fact, the 
developing evidence that the opposite may be true, that creation of 
majority minority districts may be reducing, not increasing, bloc 
voting.

  Consider, for example, the majority minority congressional district 
in Mississippi created in the 1980's. The district was barely majority 
black and in 1986, Congressman Mike Espy was elected. In his first 
election, Espy generated only 21 percent of the white vote. In Espy's 
reelection bid in 1988 and 1990, nearly half of the white voters in the 
district voted for him. Other members of the Congressional Black Caucus 
have reported similar increases in white support after their initial 
reelection. We attribute this increase in crossover voting in two 
circumstances: First, our decision to represent all our voters 
regardless of race; and second, a reduction in white fear and harmful 
stereotyping that may have predated our initial election.
  The creation of minority opportunity districts comprised of a 
majority black voting age population does not entrench racial bloc 
voting. Although, there is a need to study the evidence that is 
available on this point, what evidence there is suggests that the 
creation of majority-minority districts promotes a political system in 
which race does not matter as much as it did before.
  Along with a number of African-Americans, I was elected to Congress 
in 1992 in a district that was one of the most integrated in my State. 
My district is roughly 50 percent black and 50 percent white in voting 
population. Does that sound segregated or gerrymandered? All of my 
constituents are important to me, whether they are black or white. That 
would be true whether my district was 50 percent black or 99 percent 
black. My district is one of the most Democratic districts in the State 
of Florida. Many of my voters had been disenfranchised.
  Redistricting since the 1990 census has marked tremendous gains for 
women and minorities. 1992, the year I was elected to Congress, was 
very historic for Florida. For the first time in over 120 years, an 
African-American was elected to Congress from Florida. At the same time 
I was elected to represent the Third Congressional District, my 
colleague's Representative Carrie Meek and Representative Alcee 
Hastings, were also elected to represent Florida in Congress. Sixteen 
new African-American Members, most from the South, were seated in the 
House of Representatives and one African-American Senator, Carol 
Mosely-Braun was seated, expanding the number of Congressional Black 
Caucus Members to 40, the largest ever. There are now 57 women, 19 
Hispanics, 8 Asians, and 1 American-Indian. This is the highest number 
of minorities to ever serve in the history of the U.S. Congress. 
Despite these gains, less than 2 percent of the elected officials in 
this country are black. We still need the Voting Rights Act, we still 
have a long way to go. I, and others, would not have the privilege of 
serving in Washington if it were not for the courage and sacrifice of 
those great leaders who led the way before us.

[[Page H 13800]]

  Let me tell you a little bit about a great leader, Josiah Wells, who 
was Florida's first Member of Congress. Josiah Wells was first elected 
to the House of Representatives in 1879, from Gainesville, FL, which is 
in the Third Congressional District. Josiah Wells' election was 
challenged and he lost his seat after only 2 months in office. However, 
by that time, he had already been reelected to a new term. Believe it 
or not, his next victorious election was challenged after ballots were 
burned in a courthouse fire. And thus ended the congressional career of 
Florida's first Black representative.

  Once Reconstruction began, 21 black Congressmen were elected from the 
South between 1870 to 1901. However, after 1901, when Jim Crow 
tightened his grip, no black person was elected to Congress from the 
South for over 70 years. It is more timely than ever, to study what 
happed to black representation during Reconstruction. This period may 
seem like ancient history, but what happened then seems to be happening 
all over again.
  The court would do well to consider these facts, rather than assuming 
the worst about the body politic and African-American Members of 
Congress. Integrated districts like mine are good for minority voters 
because they provide for electoral opportunities where none previously 
existed. They are also for democracy in the sense that they help to 
break down racial isolation and polarization.
  When a minority group like African-Americans, who were denied a 
representative in the Florida delegation for 120 years before my 
election in 1992, are able to elect their candidate to Congress, it 
makes our Government more legitimate because it is more inclusive and 
less prone to bias. I cannot understand why the Supreme Court would 
want it any other way, yet their decisions up to now are leading us 
precisely down that path. Because I have faith in the system and in the 
rule of law, I remain hopeful that the Court see these truths to be 
self-evident.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The point is that there were funny things 
going on in that time, and there are funny things going on now; all 
designed to assure that the minority community does not have 
representation in this body.
  White I do not want to dwell on the historical context, I do think it 
is important to get it into a historical context so that people 
understand that this is not something that we come to complain about 
just because it is happening in 1990. This has been going on for well 
over a hundred years, and for us, it has been going on in this country 
ever since we came to these shores.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I think the gentleman's point about the historical 
context in which this whole drama that is not being played out must be 
viewed is very important. To reiterate, 21 times blacks had their 
elections challenged, blacks in Congress had their elections 
challenged. Right now, we are looking at challenges that have been 
filed or are planning to be filed in Virginia, North Carolina, South 
Carolina legislative districts, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, 
Mississippi, New York, and Illinois. You are absolutely right, that 
this is not anything new.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentlewoman would yield just for 1 
more minute, because I am going to have to leave and I do want to put 
this in a slightly different context also, in addition to the 
historical context, because the Supreme Court has suggested that all of 
the sudden we should wave a magic wand and will that the Nation and its 
voters be color-blind and this problem will be solved.
  Often, in talking about this and getting people to understand how 
ridiculous that notion is, I make reference to what has recently 
transpired in South Africa where they had a very small white minority 
controlling that country for years and years and years. Then they had a 
miraculous historic transition to a real Democratic government.
  The question I ask is, ``Do you think that the United States of 
America would have been satisfied if the black majority in South Africa 
had come forward with a proposed democracy that said we are going to be 
color-blind; we are not going to take race into account at all; we are 
not going to assure the white minority in South Africa representation 
in this new Democratic government?'' Do you think that the United 
States of America would have stood still for that kind of thinking?
  My answer, obviously, is no, because it would have been ridiculous to 
think that all of those years of history could have just been wiped out 
and we could have created a color-blind society, a color-blind 
democracy in South Africa. It could not happen.
  If the white minority in South Africa was going to have any chance of 
having a fair shot at representation and having its views reflected in 
that democracy, the only way it was going to happen was to set up a 
system that allowed them to have representation.
  Yet, if we take that scenario and we reverse the roles, our Supreme 
Court essentially is suggesting that exactly what we would have 
rejected in South Africa is what we should be doing in our democracy 
here in the United States.
  It is outrageous. It makes no sense in terms of fairness. It makes no 
sense in terms of the political and historical realities of the 
situation.
  So, I applaud the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson 
and the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. McKinney and the gentlewoman from 
Florida, Ms. Brown. I applaud all of these gentlewomen for doing this 
this evening, and bringing this issue back into focus. Especially, 
since on Tuesday of this coming week, the Supreme Court is, again, 
hearing oral arguments in the North Carolina case and in the Texas 
case.
  Our Nation and our people need to be focused on this issue and why it 
is important to have every segment of our society represented if we are 
to have an effective democracy in this country.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Will the gentleman yield just for one moment 
before he leaves? Can the gentleman from North Carolina shed some light 
on what the Supreme Court will be reviewing as far as Shaw versus Reno?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I think there is a real substantial 
question about what they will be reviewing. They set up a series of 
criteria in the original Shaw versus Reno decision. Many of those 
criteria were not upon even mentioned when the Supreme Court decided 
the Georgia case. They seemed to change the criteria.
  So, the North Carolina case has been tried under criteria that we do 
not know whether are applicable criteria any more or not. I am hoping 
that they will evaluate the case on the criteria that they set up in 
the North Carolina case. But even if they do not, if they evaluate it 
on the criteria that they set in the Georgia case, that race cannot be 
the predominant factor, I still am confident that even on that 
standard, the districts can and should be upheld both in North Carolina 
and in Texas.

                             {time}   1830

  Ms. McKINNEY. The gentleman, with respect to his South Africa 
comments, raises an interesting question that I am glad you answered.
  We have with us a gentleman from Alabama, who is a strong fighter, 
always has been a strong fighter, and now he comes to the floor of this 
House to make sure that what happens in this whole redistricting arena 
is not something that catches people off guard. We want to make sure 
that folks are not asleep while this quiet counterrevolution takes 
place.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the historical 
analysis that both Members gave dealing with the State of Florida as 
well as North Carolina. We also have a history in Alabama. I am the 
first African American to represent African Americans or anyone else in 
the State of Alabama in 117 years.
  I, too, come, being the fourth from the State, the fourth African 
American. But let me tell you about the second and the third. They 
never served. They were elected, but they never served, because their 
elections were a challenged, and that is a tragedy. But it is all 
reflective of what our country has undergone during our short history.
  Unfortunately, there are those in the majority that believe in 
democracy but do not believe in diversity. They will use such terms as 
equality, such terms as colorblind society to justify why there are not 
nor should not be African-Americans in Congress or in the State houses 
or in city halls anywhere in this country.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, what is color-blind? 
Does that mean we are invisible?
  Mr. HILLIARD. I would think in the context that it is used by those 
who are against diversity, against African-Americans participating in 
the democratic process in this country, it means invisible, yes.

[[Page H 13801]]

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, that means that you do not participate.
  The point I was making is a very simple point. Throughout history, 
those persons who have been in the majority always seek ways and 
vehicles to protect their majority status in every respect, if you look 
at any country.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, protecting majority status, there is 
nothing wrong with that. Our presence in this body does not threaten 
the majority status.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Well, it does not threaten it from the standpoint, from 
your standpoint. That is because I am sure you believe in 
diversification. You believe in participation by everyone. But 
protection of the majority status to those persons that I have come in 
contact with and, as I say, I am from the South, means that everything 
has to be the way of the majority, which means they do not appreciate 
diversity. And they are not interested in districts if the districts 
produce African-American Representatives, or any minority 
Representatives.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a 10-year-old son. My son 
accompanies me on the floor of this House. Now, if my presence here 
threatens the majority status, how do I explain that to my son when he 
clearly looks around and says: ``Well, mama, there ain't enough of you. 
There ain't very many women in this body. There ain't very many 
African-Americans in this body.'' So what is threatened by my presence 
in this body?
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, it is the same type of threat that is 
pervasive throughout our society. Even if we look at affirmative action 
policies, which is very much akin to this issue and to this argument. 
Set-asides, 5 percent. It is a threat because it is not 100 percent. 
They want 100 percent. So they are against affirmative action. They are 
against set-asides. And we are only talking about 5 out of 100 percent. 
But that is 5 percent that is too much, because they cannot have it 
also. That is the type of threat that is in our society. It has been 
here.
  Ms. McKINNEY. So those who have 96 percent are not satisfied unless 
there is 100 percent?
  Mr. HILLIARD. Absolutely. Unfortunately, this is also the philosophy 
of the highest court in our land and the Supreme Court. And it does not 
allow for diversity in anything.
  I am going to yield, because my colleague from Texas has been here 
patiently, and she has some things to say.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me express my appreciation 
for the sponorship of this hour. I will not dwell on the history of 
Texas because we all know it. But I want to dwell on the present.
  We have encouraged our children and our grandchildren that this 
democracy is worth dying for. We have said that this is our country, 
and we are going to fight for this country, that this is the greatest 
country in the world. But they do not understand that, when you follow 
the rules, get education and training, that the opportunities are 
different for you.

  Mr. HILLIARD. And limited.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I believe strongly that I have 
represented the district that I was elected in as well or better than 
any previous elected official. I have answered mail. I have never 
referred to my constituents as ``you people.'' I have been responsive. 
I have not just sent form letters. I have researched the issues. And I 
try very hard to come before them to listen. I have learned a lot by 
listening.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given representation all 
of the time whereas before it was representation some of the time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, the representation from my 
area and for me meant seeing my elected official once every couple of 
years at some of the churches or buying a ticket or a table to a church 
or the NAACP banquet. That was my representation.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. You mean your representation was not showing up 
once a year at the festival?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I can guarantee you, they showed 
up every other year and at the churches.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I think representation, one of the things that 
the research will have shown is that, when African-Americans are 
elected, they represent all of the people. When we fight for school 
lunch programs, I want every last one of our kids to eat all over the 
country, really.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. When I look out for corporate 
opportunities, for research and development, rarely are those large 
businesses owned by people that look like me. But I believe strongly 
that, when we have a strong business community and lots of research to 
look out for the future, that it is good for all of us. But all of us 
then must have some opportunity in it.
  We will fight the wars. We will help to do things. But when we are 
treated as invisibles or unwanteds, then it does not encourage my 
children or my grandchildren to go to college, to go to training, to be 
well equipped, because they see parents are having a struggle after 
they have done it. They do not know whether there will be an 
opportunity.
  There is no understanding in my community why the district that I 
represent is being attacked. Because, you see, it is less than 50 
percent African-American, and we have districts in Texas that are 88 
and 90 percent Anglo, but they are constitutional. I do not understand 
that. Are they unconstitutional because it happens to be a few more 
that the incumbents allowed me to put in a district, because our 
efforts in Texas were to preserve the incumbents?
  Ms. McKINNEY. The gentlewoman from Texas, from Dallas, as well as the 
gentlewoman from Houston have both endured constitutional challenges to 
their districts where the lower court found that their districts were 
unconstitutional.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. The second time around.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the district in Dallas was found 
unconstitutional, and the district in Houston, more than ably 
represented by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, was also found 
unconstitutional.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that 20 years ago 
Barbara Jordan represented this district, and that is really 
frightening because we are talking about regression here. This is the 
district that was held by Barbara Jordan, one of the first females 
elected to Congress.

  Ms. McKINNEY. Barbara Jordan's historic district has now been found 
unconstitutional.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia 
because we have spent many hours discussing our families and our sons. 
How important it is for us to give encouragement to young people, as my 
colleague from Texas has already mentioned. I listened passionately, as 
others were speaking passionately. I might remind us, as this comes 
somewhat to a close, of the words that the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] offered about the last African-American preceding 
this era who served here in the House and who had to leave not of his 
own accord in 1901. I think it is important because, as the American 
people are watching, they are looking at two gentlewomen from Florida, 
and the gentleman from Alabama, and the gentleman from North Carolina, 
and all of us look alike. And they might wonder what is this issue.
  It is an issue of democracy. It is an issue that would be as 
attractive and should be to our Hispanic brothers and sisters, our 
white brothers and sisters, our Asian brothers and sisters, because it 
is a question of disenfranchising people. And on December 5, 1995, we 
will again be in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging some of the 
districts in Texas and North Carolina.
  Might I say something that I take great offense at, in fact I am 
appalled, and I might simply give just a very small, small summary of 
that case. The petitioners in the Richards versus Vera case, the Texas 
case in particular, came to sue that whole redistricting plan. They 
sued the whole State of Texas. They said the whole plan was wrong. But 
when it came down to a final solution, the only districts that they 
held unconstitutional were the 29th, Hispanic district, the 30th in 
Dallas, and, of course, the 18th, all of which were very much diverse, 
mine being under 50 percent African-American. But the court said that 
these districts were like racial apartheid.

[[Page H 13802]]

  I take great issue to describe democratically drawn districts that 
allow people to select a person of their choosing as an ugly term 
compared to South Africa of racial Apartheid. To the American people, 
that is not true. It is something that you should not accept. It is 
simply the adding of diversity.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out what the 
gentlewoman has referred to. The entire map of Texas was challenged, 
and they picked over this district. Talking about the lower court, the 
three judge panel found this district here, which is 91 percent white, 
constitutional. They did not find anything wrong with that district. 
They had to leap all the way to Barbara Jordan's district and say: Now, 
no, we do not want people like Barbara Jordan in Congress, so her 
district is unconstitutional; but this district right here withstands 
constitutional scrutiny.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Until the Voting Rights Act was in place, the Hon. 
Barbara Jordan would not have been in the U.S. Congress to represent 
all of the people and all Americans.
  Ms. McKINNEY. The gentlewoman is absolutely right.
  I would like to conclude by saying that I know that there are people 
who understand this issue, who are not asleep during the 
counterrevolution and who truly appreciate that there is something 
wrong when a district like the Sixth District of Texas can be found 
constitutional, and the districts that we all represent can be found 
unconstitutional or can be challenged as to whether or not they are 
constitutional.

                              {time}  1845

  I received a letter dated November 9 from Richard Hamilton from 
Fleetwood, PA, and he says, ``I'm a white northern conservative 
Republican. You have gained my respect through this speech. I wish 
there was some way I could help you with your problem. To lose someone 
like yourself through this redistricting is a tragedy for your 
district.''
  This comes from the pen of a conservative, a staunch pro-gun, pro-
life, small-government, low-taxes conservative:

       Government needs people like yourself. Your voting record, 
     I'm sure, would be directly opposite to my views. No matter. 
     This is a democracy. Even though I may not agree with some of 
     your views, I respect them. Having heard you, I would be 
     compelled to vote for you. You are qualified in every sense. 
     I would be honored to have you represent me in Congress. 
     Sounds crazy; doesn't it?

  Mr. Speaker, it does not sound crazy at all. Mr. Hamilton gets it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield for just 
a moment, we say the word ``democracy.'' And I applaud her for that 
letter because that is a commonsense American, and that is why I think 
this evening is important, so that individuals understand that we are 
not trying to grab something that does not belong to us or grab 
something for our personal selves. What will happen is your 
constituents, those who you represent at this point, will be denied the 
opportunity to select someone of their choosing, and that person can be 
of any array of individuals, but they have the opportunity now, more 
than they have ever had before in history, to do so, but this body is 
also a republic.
  Some people always hear the word ``Republican'' because it is in the 
majority right now. A republic means that you have a representative 
body and that we are all not alike. Before the Voter Rights Act of 1965 
they were all alike, and in fact until women got the right to vote, 
they were all alike, and it is since these laws have created 
opportunities we have seen women coming to the U.S. Congress, and we 
have seen minorities, and particularly African-Americans, Hispanics, 
and we have Asians coming into this body; that is a republic. That is 
what we are saying to the American people.
  Why would the Constitution be selected to undermine the rights of 
citizens to select someone of their choosing?

  Ms. McKINNEY. The Supreme Court has taken the bold step of declaring 
the district that I represent unconstitutional. I do not lose. The 
people of America lose. And if each one of us is taken out of this 
body, what kind of republic, what kind of democracy, can America claim?
  Is it that the Congressman from Alabama wants to say some concluding 
words?
  Mr. HILLIARD. I just want to add that it is important that we 
preserve American democracy, and in order to preserve democracy we must 
make sure that all persons in this country are represented, that all 
persons participate, and there is no other way of doing it.
  Thus through district representation it is what our forefathers would 
have fought for if we had had districts at that time, but because of 
the fact things were so small, there were so few Americans, there was 
not a need for it.
  But things have changed. Our Constitution has changed, and it has 
changed because it wanted to make sure that protections that were not 
granted before to those persons who were absent are now granted.
  So we need to, along without our forefathers, make sure that 
everything is constitutional and everyone has an opportunity to 
participate.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I have a piece of legislation which has been 
introduced, House Resolution 2545, which proposes a solution to this 
problem. It gets us to color blindness, it gets us to republican 
representative democracy, it gets us to the kind of participation that 
we all want and value in this country.
  In the next special order we will talk about some solutions to this 
problem that do not rely on single-Member districts which have been the 
tool that the Voting Rights Act allowed us that are now under attack 
because they have been so successful.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. In closing, next week, when the Supreme Court 
will hear the arguments in another reapportionment case, let me say 
that I have faith in the system, and I do believe that the Supreme 
Court can clear up what they have started in 1993 in Shaw versus Reno 
and acknowledge what really drives districts. It is not race; it is 
politics. It is politics, my colleagues. It is politics.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I would just like to say in conclusion thank you to all 
of the Members of this body who have come to me personally and, I am 
sure, have come to each of the other Members who are on this floor 
right now to express their concern about what is happening in 
redistricting, and how valuable our participation is and how valuable 
the notion of diversity is to having policies produced that are 
meaningful to the broad spectrum of the American electorate.

                          ____________________