[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2276-E2277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TRIBUTE TO THE TRADE UNION LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

                                 ______


                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 30, 1995

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Trade 
Union Leadership Council [TULC] which was organized nearly 40 years ago 
by a small but determined group of African-American trade unionists in 
Detroit. These men and women banded together to fight the blatant 
racism that existed in unions as well as in management.
  From its modest beginnings in 1957, TULC developed into a powerful 
political and social force that was nationally recognized and praised. 
It attacked the racist policies in the unions and it literally changed 
the complexion of union leadership; it forced companies to desegregate 
their work forces; it operated skilled trades apprenticeship programs 
aimed primarily at young blacks who had been excluded from such 
programs, and it became a force to be reckoned with in the field of 
politics.
  In its heyday in the 1960's and 1970's, TULC had some 10,000 members. 
The organization was applauded for its emphasis on self help and self 
development. It often was harshly criticized by union and management 
chiefs for its insistence on job equality, but it withstood the 
criticism and forced open the doors of opportunity.
  Those gains did not come easily. In the decades of the forties, 
fifties, and sixties, discrimination was rampant across the Nation. As 
late as the mid-1940's, more than a dozen unions still had white-only 
policies. Through the 1950's and until the 1960's, the powerful 
executive board of the United Auto Workers was lily white.
  It was in this atmosphere that TULC was forged. Its 19 founding 
members included the late labor activists Horace Sheffield and Robert 
(Buddy) Battle III, both of whom rose to key positions in the UAW. Also 
among that group was a local 600 activist and democratic State Central 
Committee member named Elizabeth Jackson who would later become one of 
the most powerful women in the UAW. Hubert Holley, head of Detroit's 
bus drivers and John Brown, the current TULC president, were founding 
members as was my late father, John Conyers, Sr. I was one of the 
lawyers who drafted TULC's articles of incorporation.
  Initially, TULC planned to focus on unions and to restrict its 
membership to union members. But, as Robert Battle explained years ago 
in an interview:

       * * * we found that we could not separate the problems of 
     the unions from the community because basically the union 
     people are the community when they are at home. So we lifted 
     the bar then and made it a community organization. We figured 
     that the problem of job discrimination and discrimination 
     within the unions were problems that should be dealt with 
     within the community as well as within labor. We dropped the 
     bar and said that all you had to believe in was the struggle, 
     the fight of all mankind.

  The TULC members knew the problems in the unions, and they tackled 
them head on. The organization's leaders repeatedly and publicly 
challenged the AFL-CIO to eliminate segregation from the locals and to 
remove the constitutional color bars that were part of the AFL-CIO 
philosophy. In its monthly publication entitled ``The Vanguard,'' the 
TULC wrote an open letter in 1962 to AFL-CIO president George Meany. 
The letter warned Meany that African-American trade unionists would no 
longer tolerate the discriminatory practices of the AFL-CIO. 
``Discrimination, no matter how it is packaged or who does the 
wrapping, remains discrimination'' the letter said. ``Negroes insist on 
an end to job discrimination now. Not when Mr. Meany and his righteous 
followers get around to it, not when the so-called grievance 
`machinery' is perfected, not when the NAACP (or any such organization) 
fills staff positions with people strictly suitable to AFL-CIO tastes--
but now.''
  At the same time TULC was relentlessly pushing the AFL-CIO to change, 
the group was running classes to teach young people how to apply for 
and prepare for a job. Over the years, TULC continued on that two-
tiered track--pushing unions, management, and government to increase 
opportunities and teaching people how to avail themselves of those 
opportunities.
  The AFL-CIO wasn't TULC's only target. For years, TULC members were 
furious because the United Auto Workers' all powerful executive board 
was also all white. In 1959, Sheffield, Battle, and union activist 
Willoughby Abner set the stage for change when they forced the issue at 
the UAW's 17th Constitutional Convention in Atlanta. Sheffield told the 
gathering that the union leadership had promised some 16 years earlier 
to put an African-American on the executive board. He said blacks were 
tired of waiting.
  In 1962, the color barrier was broken with the election of Nelson 
``Jack'' Edwards, a region 1A staff representative, to the executive 
board. Although many thought Sheffield should have had that post, his 
outspoken criticism of the UAW leadership kept him from it.
  TULC remained busy on the social and political fronts. In 1960, TULC 
rallied more than 1,400 people to form the National Negro American 
Labor Council. The late A. Philip Randolph was the first president. 
Around the same time, TULC was flexing its political muscle. TULC was 
instrumental in the election of African-Americans to government office 
and it successfully campaigned for the ouster of Louis Miriani, 
Detroit's incumbent mayor who was openly hostile to blacks.
  TULC also campaigned vigorously to increase the minimum wage to a 
level where people earning it could afford to buy the products they 
produced. The organization also traveled the Midwest explaining to 
working people the dangers of ``right to work'' legislation.
  On the job front, TULC forced many companies, including United Parcel 
and Wolpin Distributors, to hire their first black drivers. Also during 
the 1960's, TULC and the Building Trades Council jointly initiated an 
apprenticeship training program that became a national model for such 
efforts. By the mid-1970's, the program had recruited thousands of 
minority youths, and the majority of them were employed in the Detroit 
area.
  Recognizing the need for educational enrichment programs for deprived 
youth, TULC established the Educational Foundation of all races. The 
foundation offered classes ranging from remedial reading to typing to 
job-seeking skills.
  TULC also offered enrichment classes for preschoolers and helped 10 
Detroit high schools establish sections on African-Americans in their 
school libraries.
  John Brown, current TULC president, said that the founding members 
took a risk in forming TULC. ``Quite a few people resented us for doing 
this,'' Brown said. The criticism did not deter the group from 
attacking gross discrimination wherever they found it.
  Today, only four of the original members are still alive, Elizabeth 
Jackson, John Brown, former State Representative Daisy Elliott, and 
retired city of Detroit employee Mickey Welch. Membership stands at 
over 2,500. TULC works with the Detroit Board of Education, and it 
makes regular contributions to local charities. It also sponsors weekly 
programs for senior citizens, and it continues to sponsor cultural 
enrichment programs for local youths.
  The bold efforts of the Trade Union Leadership Council have enabled 
thousands of African-American men and women to progress through the 
ranks of both unions and management.
  That small group of people who gathered nearly 40 years ago today to 
demand equality deserve our praise and our respect. Their noble efforts 
must not be forgotten.

[[Page E2277]]


CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 
                                  1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                            HON. JOE BARTON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Saturday, November 18, 1995

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation. With its passage begins the resolution of years of 
questionable implementation of the inspection and maintenance [I&M] 
program by EPA, required by sections 182, 184, and 187 of the Clean Air 
Act. The controversy began with the finalization of the 1992 rule. 
Within that rule was an assumption that decentralized or test-and-
repair I&M programs were approximately 50 percent less effective than 
centralized or test-only programs. In addition, the final rule removed 
a provision within the proposed rule which would have given States a 2-
year period to demonstrate the effectiveness of enhanced decentralized 
programs. Three years later, EPA has yet to convince States that such a 
discount is appropriate, and the I&M issue is as yet unresolved. This 
legislation begins to resolve this dispute by restoring a demonstration 
period in which States will be permitted to demonstrate appropriate 
credits.
  Earlier this year, the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of 
the House Commerce Committee, which I chair, held two hearings on the 
inspection and maintenance issue. Those hearings called into question 
the basis for the so called 50-percent discount. At the time of the 
hearing, EPA stated that it relied on 15 years of vehicle audit and 
tampering data to justify this discount. However, evidence produced by 
the California I/M Review Committee and Dr. Doug Lawson of Desert 
Research Institute called into question whether this data supported the 
discount.
  At the hearing, and in follow-up questions, however, EPA stated that 
the basis for the discount was not audit and tampering data, but from 
two indepth studies conducted in California. These indepth studies of 
California's decentralized program indicated that reductions were 20 
percent for hydrocarbons [HC], 15 percent for carbon monoxide [CO], and 
7 percent for nitrogen oxides [Nox], about half what they were expected 
to be, according to EPA--hence the 50-percent discount. But EPA 
estimates credits for a decentralized program are appropriate 6.5-
percent reductions in HC, 12.6 for CO, and 1.5 percent for Nox, much 
less than the reductions found in California.
  Outside studies of ``real world'' data also called into question 
EPA's system of credits. Two engineering professors from the University 
of Minnesota found that a centralized I&M program recently adopted in 
the Minneapolis/St. Paul region was achieving only a 1-percent 
reduction in CO. EPA had originally predicted the program would reduce 
CO emissions by 30 percent. They later revised that estimate to 9-
percent reductions. If centralized testing is so effective, why would 
the centralized program be expected to achieve only a 9-percent 
reduction in CO, when decentralized programs in general are predicted 
to achieve a 12.6 percent reduction in CO. Finally, ``real world'' 
evidence taken from hundreds of thousands of remote sensing readings 
further indicate that whether a program is centralized or decentralized 
was relatively unimportant to the effectiveness of the program.
  The provision in this bill therefore, asks EPA to go back to the 
drawing board. By restoring flexibility to the States, it is hoped that 
States will experiment with various I&M configurations, such as remote 
sensing. EPA should use data from State programs so measure the 
performance of centralized verses decentralized programs, and both 
types should be examined relative to the performance standard. In 
particular, I am hopeful that States and EPA will use this opportunity 
to refocus I&M on that small minority of vehicles that cause most of 
the pollution. Data indicates that as few as 10 percent of the vehicles 
cause over 50 percent of the pollution. Therefore, techniques that 
screen out gross polluters such as remote sensing, should be seriously 
considered.