[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2299-E2300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         35TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE RANGE

                                 ______


                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 6, 1995

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago today, the 
Eisenhower administration had the foresight to protect what then-
Interior Secretary Seton described as ``one of the most magnificent 
wildlife and wilderness areas in North America.''
  Time has shown the wisdom of that bold action by the Eisenhower 
administration. As designated by Congress in 1980, the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge's unique wilderness and wildlife values make it a crown 
jewel of our refuge system.
  As industrial-scale oil development continues to sprawl across the 
North Slope of Alaska, pressure to open and exploit the Arctic refuge 
is intense. But while the oil development wolves are knocking at the 
refuge door, President Clinton has continued the legacy of Presidents 
Eisenhower and Carter through his commitment to preserving intact this 
vital arctic ecosystem.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress has ignored this 
bipartisan history. They have tried to sneak ANWR development through 
Congress under cover of the budget bill, avoiding the regular process 
of debate and amendment. Yet the purported value of ANWR for Federal 
revenues is minimal at best and its value for national energy security 
is even more dubious since this same Congress has authorized Alaskan 
oil exports.
  The true value of preserving ANWR's special wildlife habitat and 
wilderness resources for the American people are more important than 
ever before, transcending the worth of whatever minerals may lie below 
the surface. We should not sacrifice an important part of our country's 
natural heritage for the short-term gain of a handful of special 
interests.

[[Page E 2300]]


              LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE SECOND MORRILL ACT

                                 ______


                           HON. KWEISI MFUME

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 6, 1995

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which was 
initially brought to the attention of this House by my good friend, the 
late Congressman Mickey Leland. This legislation seeks to amend the 
Second Morrill Act which contains the unconstitutional separate but 
equal doctrine. The obsolete language that this bill seeks to delete 
permitted racial segregation in agricultural and mechanic arts colleges 
that were funded by the Agricultural College Act of 1890, or as it is 
more commonly known the Second Morrill Act. However, this legislation 
would not affect the continued funding of any institutions which were 
established by the act.
  The Second Morrill Act authorizes Federal funds for the support of 
colleges to teach agriculture and mechanic arts in the States and 
territories. Congress stipulated in the act that funds authorized by 
the act may not be used for colleges which made ``a distinction of race 
or color in the admission of students.'' However, in the 1890's, many 
States either provided no education for black students or educated them 
in schools separate from white students. Therefore, the act allowed for 
the ``establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for 
white and colored students'' and ``for a just and equitable division of 
the fund . . . between one college for white students and one 
institution for colored students.''
  This language, which remains in the U.S. Code, stirs up memories from 
one of the most troubling chapters in our Nation's history. Over 40 
years ago, the Supreme Court decisions in Brown versus Board of 
Education and Bolling versus Sharp rendered the language meaningless. 
Although the law may be moot, the fact that it remains on the books is 
an affront to all African-Americans.
  The continued presence of the language in the U.S. Code contradicts 
our national policy against racial segregation and serves no valid 
function. The deletion of the language is long overdue.
  I sincerely hope that the committees of jurisdiction will act quickly 
on this measure and that enactment will be forthcoming.

                          ____________________