Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4402-H4409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the
National Day of Prayer and to appreciate the words of our guest
chaplain and to acknowledge that this is a country that allows all of
us to be able to pray in peace and in freedom. I would encourage all
those who utilize that tool as their spiritual connection to applaud
and appreciate this particular day.

{time} 1030

I could not help but also, just as an aside from my remarks, listen
to the gentleman from Tennessee and his carefully prepared comments
about the standoff in Montana, and I would only echo his very eloquent
statement that freedom in America is paid at a price, and that price is
the obedience to the laws of the land in a nonviolent manner.
We recognize and respect protest. It has been a part of this Nation
from its earliest history, recounting the throwing of the tea into the
Boston Harbor and on down into the abolition movement, the women's
movement of the

[[Page H4403]]

early 1900's, and, of course, the continuing civil rights movement now
in the late 20th century. But I would say that having been a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary and sat through the Waco hearings for a
number of weeks, and been advised on and studied the Ruby Ridge
incident, and certainly the loss of life, it is imperative that our law
enforcement officers on a Federal level, one, be supported, and that
our citizens recognize their responsibility to peacefully protest but
not cover it in weapons and charging that they will not give up without
a fight.
I would hope that we would be able to end this standoff peacefully,
but I would admonish those who are holding up at this time that they
have an obligation as those who have partaken of the rights of this
country to protest, yes, but in peace and not in violence.
I think it is important, as we begin a new week and have concluded a
legislative week to assess our week on the issue of human capital. The
investment in human capital. The headlines and much of the attention of
Congress this week has focused on the increasing gasoline prices that
have come about over the last couple of weeks. Much of the attention,
of course, has occurred because our constituents and citizens have
faced an increased price at the pump.
In Houston alone, where I represent, we are finding prices $1.35,
average, and maybe higher in other parts of the community. It is
important, and I believe that Congress has a responsibility to
recognize the investment in human capital. That means that we must
understand the burden of what we do on the United States people, and
then we are to be problem solvers. Not to create problems but to be
problem solvers.
I have studied this issue and have come to understand that it is
probably not easy to point the finger anywhere. We can look to a place
like Texas, which has had a long history in the energy arena, both in
oil and gas, and we have found that there have been occasions in Texas
history when it has been at the peak of domestic production, when the
oil barrel price was going at a high level, relatively, on an
international level, and the oil wells were pumping hard.
So we have a problem of supply in this country. We, then, have not
built a refinery in the last 20 years. And then those who exist have
indicated that they admit that the transition process for going from
heating oil into gasoline has not been the most efficient this year. In
fact, because of the demand for heating oil, we have found that they
have not transitioned.
We realize that the weather reports have shown us that just this past
week we have had snow in the Midwest and West and so they have not
transitioned. That is part of the problem. We recognize that there has
been extremely cold weather in the central and eastern United States
and Europe and it has forced refiners to draw down their product and
crude oil inventories in order to supply the market. And, ultimately,
it has forced refiners to demand more crude oil.
In short, in the first quarter of 1996, refiners around the world
increased their demand for crude oil, while crude oil supplies were
less than expected. That drove up crude oil prices everywhere, so
refiners have paid more for crude oil and, in turn, have been passing
through costs in gasoline and other products.
There lies the question, and where is the answer? The question is
what are we doing about domestic energy production, in particular? What
has this country been doing about a domestic energy policy.
So we can rise on the floor of the House and begin to talk about
hearings and other emergency responses, but what is the long-term
response? And my question then goes out to our companies that have
certainly worldwide interests, many of whom that I represent. Their
look and their attitudes have been focused on international production.
What has happened with their production here domestically that would
help enhance jobs for America?
Crude oil prices in late March were the highest level in 5 years.
They have risen recently because weather and other factors increased
demand for petroleum products this winter. U.S. heating oil use, for
example, was estimated at 6 to 8 percent higher than during the
previous year. Also, worldwide crude oil supplies failed to increase as
much during the first 3 months of 1996 as had been anticipated.
It is important to realize, and many observers have stated, that
additional supplies of crude oil may soon appear on world markets from
a number of places inside the Persian Gulf, the North Sea, and Latin
America. We note that none of those are off the Gulf of Mexico and
other places where we could look to do domestic production safely and
environmentally safe.
That is a key. And I think that the environmental community has a
large role to play in enhancing domestic production, and we must do it
sitting at the table together. The Persian Gulf and other thoughts
about energy is reliance on energy outside of this country. And I might
add that we are concerned or in a crisis somewhat because the oil
coming from Iraq has not come because of negotiations with the United
Nations.
So we have the average family that is trying to make ends meet
finding themselves in America, particularly now in Houston in the 18th
Congressional District, not only acknowledging but paying prices that
are beyond their ability.
So I am announcing today that I am prepared to support the repeal of
the gas tax contingent upon those dollars being immediately passed
through to the benefit of the consumer. Immediately passed through on
the basis of that reduction to the consumer.
I then call for a major energy summit of those leaders of the major
companies, the big six, a domestic energy summit to talk about the
increase of domestic energy production so that we are not undermined
domestically or with respect to our national security.
There is a need for this Congress, as the days of legislative
activity are waning, to reinvest in human capital. And certainly that
is human capital, to ensure the domestic production of energy, in
particular oil and gas, and as well to increase the opportunity for
work in this country that I have spoken about over the years and bring
some immediate relief to our constituents by repealing the gas tax, but
having it based and contingent upon moving it directly to the consumer.
With that, I hope that we will, as a Congress, be able to come back
next week, and, in fact, not have the partisan bickering but ensure
that we respond to what appears to be an approaching energy crisis. We
will have these, however, repeatedly and we will then look for other
ways to cut the costs of gasoline. That is not the way to handle it,
through the back door. The best way to handle it is to confront now the
immediate emergency, but to deal with the issues of domestic
production, job creation, and facing this crisis, whether we have cold
winters or light winters, whether we have harsh summers or whether we
have a busy summer for travel. We need to tell the people of America we
will protect you and you have the resources that you have come to
expect over the years.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I likewise rise to speak about another
aspect of human capital investment, and that is the increase in the
minimum wage. I have been a constant speaker on this issue, reminded
very frequently as I visit with my constituents.
It has sometime saddened me that we categorize people. And I have
heard my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans who have
said it is only a small amount of individuals who get the minimum wage.
It is young people who are in entry level jobs. They do not stay there
long. Well, let me tell my colleagues something. First of all, 80
percent of the American people want to see the minimum wage increased.
In fact, 59 percent of those who are on minimum wage are working women
with children trying to make ends meet, facing the elimination, by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, of the earned-income tax
credit. These individuals have opted for work over welfare.

And might I add to my good friend who was previously on the floor
challenging that we have an increase in minimum wage and welfare
reform, that I am on record for voting for welfare reform, that is the
right kind of welfare reform, along with my Democratic colleagues; and
that is welfare reform with child care, job training and health care,
and a certain period of

[[Page H4404]]

time on, and, as well, the ability to supplement with respect to food
stamps that allows individuals to transition off of welfare into the
workplace.
I assure my colleagues, however, that we are not going to be serious
about the discussion of whether we need to have an increase in the
minimum wage if we have the leadership of the House saying, ``The
minimum wage is a very destructive thing. I will resist a minimum wage
increase with every fiber in my being.'' House Majority Leader Dick
Armey, who was likewise on the ``Nightline'' program where he altered
his comments. But these are his comments on Fox Morning News, CNN News,
on January 24, 1995.
That is clearly not a bipartisan approach to the question of helping
Americans become equal. We find out that the minimum wage presently is
$4.25, which allows our citizens to make a mere $8,840. That is what
someone has to work a full year on a minimum wage to make $8,840. Now,
I would like the heads of our major companies, and I think they create
work in this country, and I am certainly a supporter of that, but the
average CEO of a large U.S. corporation works half a day to make
$8,840, and yet 59 percent of working women make $8,840, and they may
have two or more dependents.
What is the issue, then, of raising the minimum wage, a clean bill of
90 cents, that would allow our citizens to get $1,800 more in their
pocket? The middle class should be supporting this as well, because as
those raises go up, I have heard from my constituents who are two-
parent families, working every day, barely making ends meet to pay for
the cost of transportation, the cost of light and water bills and
mortgages, the cost of caring for children. And here we have a
situation where the U.S. Congress is standing in the way of increasing
the minimum wage.
The Democrats are simply asking not for a political point, we can all
argue political points, but we are asking for the real answer to a real
problem, and that is Americans are not seeing their wages go up in
equal rate, if you will, with the responsibilities that they have.
So I would ask my colleagues to give some thought to those people who
pick peas and pick corn. I would ask Members to give some thought to
those who sweep floors and, yes, who throw the hamburgers, because
those who do that work are not only young teenagers but they are people
who have responsibilities to support their families.
In fact, one story of a young person who worked, they were not just
working for extra cash, they were working to be able to support
themselves for a better life, to go through medical school. And they
argued vigorously that we do not know what that 15 cents per hour means
to them. Many of us who would not remember those days when we started
out in minimum wage, and all of us did, do not understand what it is to
take home $8,840 a year while some of our good friends can sit and get
that in maybe 4 hours in the morning.
So I call now for an immediate increase in the minimum wage, a clean,
straightforward 90 cents. I know my colleagues had offered a higher
number. If the analysis will support it, I would even be willing to do
that. However, I would not be willing, and I think it is, of course, an
effort to stop the increase in minimum wage, to draw down on or to
heavily laden that particular legislation with a whole lot of other
parts of the legislation that many of us do not agree with.
Welfare reform will come, but it has to come in a bipartisan manner
such that we provide to those who are transitioning off of welfare the
job training, the child care, and health care that they need. Right now
these individuals who are in the workplace need our help now. They are
the ones that are suffering without getting health care. They are the
ones, if you will, that are suffering by having to support their
children. Yes, their children, plural, on $8,840.
So I would say that a minimum wage is an investment in human capital
and we must invest in human capital.

{time} 1045

It brings me of course to another point about the investment in human
capital. I found this week and over the last week something that is
most egregious. It is offensive. It takes away from the American people
their privileges of seeking redress of their grievances in the Federal
courts or any court, for that matter.
Mr. Speaker, I might venture to say that I am not going to make a
judgment on the right or wrong of this case. I will not make a
judgment. I will simply provide the facts. Those facts deal with a case
dealing with the Mitsubishi Co. that makes cars out in Normal, IL. It
is tragic that we find ourselves in 1996 where actions are being filed
on behalf of women for sexual harassment.
I will read out of a petition by these plaintiffs indicating what has
occurred there. This is about 30-some women who have gone to work in
this plant for no other reason than to provide an income for themselves
and their family, no other reason, to do a good job and to provide an
income for their family. It said from the time Mitsubishi opened its
plant in 1987 and continuing through the present, 1996, Mitsubishi has
created and fostered an environment at the plant that has been severely
hostile toward its female employees. As a result, plaintiffs in many of
the plants, other female employees have been continually subjected on
an ongoing basis to relentless sex discrimination, sexual harassment
and sexual abuse from their male colleagues and in many cases from
their male supervisors.
Mr. Speaker, such discrimination, sexual harassment and abuse has
taken many forms that have been presented now in this particular
petition. It would include unwelcome grabbing, touching, fondling,
kissing, assaults, and other sexual conduct by male coworkers and/or
male supervisors. This is 1996 when women and men should be allowed to
go into the workplace, and it should be safe. It should be free of
discrimination, and that discrimination may be racial and that
discrimination may be sexual or it may be age, ethnic origin. It should
be allowed to be free of discrimination.
What do we have here? We have a situation where not only are the
women being provided an unsafe workplace, as it relates to their own
personal feelings. There is horrendous name calling going on. They are
being harangued by individuals who are supervisors and their work
colleagues. In fact, as they have filed a lawsuit or a petition at the
EEOC, they have been intimidated and harassed. They have gotten phone
calls. Those of us who are Congresswomen who have joined in support of
these women have likewise been called and asked to cease and desist.
Mr. Speaker, we will not cease and desist. We will call for further
support of the EEOC by providing it with the necessary resources to be
effective on this case. We will also say to this company that we are
ashamed that their corporate citizenship has been so tainted and
diminished. But the place to fight their case is in the courtroom and
not in the battlefield of the workplace or against their employees who
have every right to petition against these horrible and horrific acts.
Just this week we were shown lewd and horrendous pictures showing
sexual activities of male employees and supervisors of this company.
Were these private pictures gotten from the homes of these individuals?
No, they brought these pictures into the workplace, into communal areas
where men and women had to be. Shame on you. Shame on you. This is
intolerable.
I would simply ask that we play this out in the courtroom where it
needs to be played and the facts be told and a decision be rendered.
Stop the intimidation. Stop the characterization of those who have sued
as individuals who have no rights. And, yes, to the employees, I am in
great support of your ability to work, of the plant to remain open, of
the company to be successful. But I will ask that you consider your
actions in being paid to go forth and picket different companies and
intimidate those individuals who have taken up the responsibility of
making this a safe workplace and stopping the sexual harassment that
has continued from 1987 to 1996, 9 long years.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this case be handled appropriately,
fairly, without intimidation. Then I would join in with my colleague
who previously spoke, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder],
and others who joined us, that we write the EEOC and ensure that all
the facts are had

[[Page H4405]]

and given to us and as well to receive a status report on the progress
of this case.
I said that I would talk about an investment in human capital, and
now we have talked about the increase in the gasoline price at the
pump. I announced that I will support the repeal of that gas tax and
ask that it immediately be passed through to the consumer and call for
an energy summit.
We have spoken about the need to invest in our citizens so that they
can get a decent salary above $8,840, especially those at minimum wage.
Those women and men are working to support their families and have
refused to go back on welfare, if you will.
I have asked that that occur and then to challenge one of our
corporate citizens, well known, located in Illinois to behave like a
good corporate citizen and to cease and desist from activities that
would bias against women and to proceed to argue and debate any issues
dealing with the case in the appropriate jurisdiction, not in
intimidating those who have filed their lawsuit.
Now I would like to speak on another issue dealing with the
investment in human capital, and that is, of course, the siege upon
affirmative action that affects minorities and women and, of course,
the attack on the districts that have allowed to come to the United
States Congress those individuals who come from diverse communities. It
is interesting that we have found in this climate, where talk show
hosts have gotten, I guess, their inspiration from the revolution of
1994, where there were candidates who ran on the contract, I call it,
on America, the ugly talk of blame, blaming minorities and women for
their problems. The talk show hosts across this Nation indicate that
affirmative action has kept individuals from their jobs. Poppycock, at
the most; bunk, whatever you want to call it. It makes no sense.
This morning I think it is important, as I track the interest in
investing in human capital, that we talk about this siege, this ugly
talk that has created this atmosphere where everyone feels that it is
the cost of their job, their community, that minorities have been able
to achieve certain levels of success.
I am reminded of a statement that was made in 1901. Mr. Speaker, it
goes like this:

This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negro's temporary
farewell to the American Congress, but let me say, Phoenix-
like, he will rise up some day and come again. These parting
words are in behalf of an outraged, heartbroken, bruised and
bleeding people, but God-fearing people, faithful,
industrious, loyal people, rising full of potential.

The year was 1901, and the speaker was George H. White of North
Carolina, the last African-American Congressman to serve in the 19th
century.

We come now in the 20th century and we find a series of cases being
filed by individuals who allege that they have been injured. You
wonder, some of them have been found not to even live in the districts.
These districts have included such diverse States as New York, where a
Hispanic is representing a predominantly Hispanic district, Chicago,
where another Hispanic is representing a predominantly Hispanic
district, North Carolina, where African-Americans are representing
predominantly African American districts, along with Georgia, along
with Louisiana, along with Texas.
In these cases, we found ourselves before judicial bodies, appointees
of Reagan and Bush, listening to those individuals who allege
gerrymandering. We know that gerrymandering, in the sense for political
purposes, has been upheld as a legal basis to maintain strangely drawn
districts.
My case, in particular, in Texas, it is clear, as the State has
argued, that the real basis of the districts that have been drawn is to
protect incumbents. States have a compelling interest to compel or to
protect incumbents. They have that because of seniority and reasons
where those who have gained seniority and reasons where those who have
gained seniority in the United States Congress, the Senate and the
House, particularly the House, that these seats are impacted, are those
who can carry the business of the State of Texas, the State of Georgia,
the State of North Carolina. But yet we find time after time after
time, we find that these cases have been undermined and that these
cases have been ruled against those who would hold these seats.
I argue not only the question of political incumbency, but I argue
that these majority/minority districts do one thing and one thing only:
They allow the constituents of that district to select a person of
their choosing. It is based upon the 1965 Voting Rights Act which is
based upon almost 400 years of discrimination and prejudice against
minorities in this country, particularly African-Americans.
There is no doubt that you can cite very pertinent and pointed
discrimination, for African-Americans started in this Nation three-
fifths of a person and came here in the bottom of the belly of a slave
boat and spent some 300 years as slaves in this country.
I am as well familiar with the opposition's position: That is not
current discrimination. We have heard about that already. That is past
discrimination.
Oh, I would simply take a moment of personal privilege and maybe a
moment of a degree of emotionalism here. No matter how far we go in
this country, you will never wipe out the history of slavery. You
cannot do it. We will not allow you to do it. There is no reason to do
it.
Yes, there is time to go forward, and we link arms with our brothers
and sisters as Americans to go forward and take hold of the best of
this country, the dreams of all, to aspire to the greatness of America.
But you will not take away from me or the people that have African-
American heritage their history. And you will not come into the court
system, now moving away from the courts of the 1950s, when the Brown
decision did allow for schools to be opened up. You are not going to
take the history away forever and ever and suggest that we can go back
to that place.
We have seen a sizable increase in this House, in this body, because
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which helped eliminate things like
poll tax, reading tests in order to vote, which denied many African-
Americans in the Deep South their ability to vote, which intimidated
them. We have taken away the history of the Ku Klux Klan and the Jim
Crow days. Yes, we have, but the remnants are still there.

If these decisions are allowed to prevail, then time after time after
time we will see the loss of districts which simply allow people who
happen to be minority to vote for a person of their choosing.
My district in particular is less than 50 percent African American.
It is a fairly diverse and, in fact, I would argue, one of the most
diverse districts in the State of Texas, It is my job to represent all
of the citizens, and I work extremely hard, as do all of the Members in
this body, to work for their constituents. Therefore, I think it is
incredible that the case law is continually undermining the Voting
Rights Act which seeks simply to fairly give to those who have been
discriminated against the right to vote for a person of their choosing.
The voting rights of all Americans are in danger as a result of these
Federal court decisions and the Supreme Court decision. Despite the
fact that the Voting Rights Act has been the law of the land for more
than 30 years, it has not been truly accepted by all Americans. It has
been charged unfairly with taking away the rights of others. Many
Americans fail to understand the reasons underlying the passage of this
Voting Rights Act. They ignore or are unaware of our Nation's history.
When the Nation was founded, only white males who owned property were
allowed to vote. Through the ratification of the 15th amendment to the
Constitution during the Reconstruction period and the ratification of
the 19th amendment in the 1920's, were African Americans and women of
all races granted the right to vote.

{time} 1100

Despite the 15th amendment, African Americans were routinely denied
the right to vote, particularly in the South, through physical and
economic intimidation, political maneuvers such as racial
gerrymandering, poll taxes, white primaries and at-large electoral
districts instead of single-member districts for municipal and county
governments. It is only in the last 5 to 6 years have we, in fact, been
able to find in our local governments opportunities for minorities to
be elected.

[[Page H4406]]

I know that I was one of the first two African-American women to be
elected to the city council in the city of Houston in the history of
that city that is over 150 years old.
Thus, it was necessary to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which
provided the first real opportunity for African-Americans to elect
representatives of their choice. In 1965, there are approximately 500
black elected officials in the country. In 1995 there has been an
increase, so that number has increased to a mere, to a mere 8,000.
We have not finished the fight. We have won many battles, but the
fight goes on because notably from 1901 to 1973 there were no
Representatives in the U.S. Congress from the deep South who were
African-American. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and Andrew Young were
the first African-Americans in Congress from the South in more than 70
years, and it was only through the redistricting process engaged in by
State legislatures after the 1980 census and 1990 census that African-
Americans were in a position to elect a significant number of African-
Americans to serve in Congress.
After all of this progress in 1993, with twisted logic and unusual
semantics the Supreme Court uses the term political apartheid in the
Shore versus Reno case to describe majority minority districts such as
the two black majority districts in North Carolina. And then, on in
1995, to Miller versus Johnson, the court ruled a black majority
district in Georgia as unconstitutional because it was drawn primarily
for racial reasons.
We go on to the case in Louisiana and congressional districts in
Louisiana, and, as I mentioned, Florida, Texas, Virginia are also under
attack. The Fourth Congressional District in Louisiana, Third
Congressional District in Florida, have already been declared
unconstitutional by lower Federal courts.
We are working to improve this, and yet we find that we have a
combination of a siege in the American public's perspective fueled by
ugly talk, some coming out of the U.S. Congress, some coming out of
talk shows, suggesting that it is too much, let us roll the clock back.
I see that happening in the instance of affirmative action because this
very Congress, this 104th Congress that got elected on the Contract
With America, with only 37 percent of the American people voting, now
wants to take back the clock on affirmative action.
Now wants to take back the clock on affirmative action? I am
appalled, I am outraged, I am incensed. I would ask my colleagues of
goodwill on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, I would
ask that we not support the turning back of the clock. I would ask them
to simply look in places where they might not see, and that is in the
nooks and crannies of this government, in the nooks and crannies of
this community and this Nation, where African-Americans, Hispanics, and
Asians and women have not found their rightful place, where workplaces
are predominantly of one race or the other. They have not found their
rightful place.
It is tragic, then, that in the State of Texas we would have cases
coming out, the Hopwood case versus University of Texas School of Law,
and a district court would determine, United States Court of Appeals,
would say something to the effect: Since Bakke, the court has accepted
the diversity rationale only once in its cases dealing with race. The
Bakke case has been good law for years. It has been inoffensive law
because what the Bakke case said is that race can be considered as a
factor, just a factor.
Similarly, as I went to Yale University and it was considered whether
you were the child of an alumnus, very clearly so that was taken in
consideration, and, yes, you were admitted along with other
institutions across this land like Harvard and Stanford and Princeton.
Those issues have been considered, and I might imagine the University
of Texas School of Law or the University of Texas, at least, and for
this court to say that there is no basis to continue to support the
Bakke decision when we can look in graduate schools across this Nation
and find an absence of African-Americans, you may find an absence of
women, you may find an absence of Hispanics, you may find an absence of
some disciplines of Asians, what is wrong with allowing an institution
not to have quotas? Absolutely not. Quotas have been declared illegal
for a number of years. But what is wrong with allowing institutions to
effectively seek out that talent that can bring diversity of life
experiences?
And then I have heard the ``make way'' arguments. I am incensed. The
``make way'' arguments, on this affirmative action, is not benefiting
the poor people in America, poor blacks in America. What a ludicrous
point to make. When a large company goes out to seek a CEO, do they do
their search amongst CEOs around the Nation? Chief executive officers?
Or do they go to the Bowery or do they go to the jailhouse and look for
individuals?
The question of affirmative action, that is the myth, is based upon
qualifications, being even in your qualifications, but being ignored
because you happen to be a minority, African-American, Hispanic, women
or otherwise. That is the crux of affirmative action, to recruit among
equals short of the fact that you happen to be a person of color who
has suffered immense discrimination in this Nation.
I am incensed then of the Dole-Canady legislation, which we have had
a series of hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary and elsewhere,
that wants to turn back the clock on affirmative action. It wants to
insure that we have no affirmative action in education, in jobs, and in
contracting, the very people who have provided opportunity for others
to come up, the middle class, Hispanic middle class, African-American
middle class, women and Asians who have moved into the workplace, moved
into positions of power, who have been able to bring others in behind
them. This legislation now wants to cut it to the quick, legislation
that has not shown injury, and, if it has shown injury, then I would
argue that we should take it to the proper forum, and that is to the
EEOC, to your respective State agencies that can help assist in
providing for equal opportunity.
Affirmative action programs are being unfairly attacked as reverse
discrimination against white males. These programs have only been in
existence for 30 years, and certainly this short period of time is not
adequate enough to overcome 200 years of slavery and 100 years of legal
segragation and the continued instances of discrimination that exist
today.
We must not forget the continuing obligation of Federal Government
and State government to remove all of the badges and incidences of the
Nation's past racial attitudes. It is important to realize as late as
1974 minorities represented only 1 percent of the law schools' student
body. Medical schools across this Nation are actively recruiting
minorities and African-Americans in particular because of the low
number of students in medical schools. They believe that their plan to
force diversity in the student body was permissible under the Supreme
Court decision in Bakke versus University of California, and that is,
of course, the Hopwood case, this case in Texas. The very tragedy of
this case, of course, is the fact that as soon as the case came about
and before the High Court has ruled, the Supreme Court, everybody
started rushing to judgment. Institutions throughout Houston began to
have press conferences saying we are going to stop affirmative action.
We had the Texas Coordinating Board indicating they were going to stop
rendering scholarships. Families in Houston and Dallas and San Antonio
and west Texas and east Texas and Laredo and places in south Texas
depending upon scholarships for their young people to enter into the
fall semester, and what does our State do? Call back the scholarship
program based on a decision at best that is wrong and has not been to
the Supreme Court.
Why is that? It is because there is a mind set and an attitude.
Everyone is rushing to judgment. They are rushing to judgment to insure
that the good work of the 30 years that have began to open the doors of
opportunity be immediately turned back.
My plea is to this U.S. Congress to remember the words of George, the
individual, George White, in terms of his desire to come back into the
U.S. Congress through his people. He had to leave in 1901, and there
was a big gap for 70 years, but he never gave up. He continued to be
able to assure with his spirit that we would never give up.

[[Page H4407]]

And as I talk about affirmative action, it is to be emphasized that
as we look at the student body population in the 1995-96 school year,
only 17 percent of the student body was comprised of minorities.
Additionally, 58 percent of the student body was male, and 75 percent
was white. The State's minority population is currently 40 percent.
This is in the State of Texas, and the State of Texas has appealed this
case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And so, in fact, when we begin to talk about whether there is an
overutilization where the minorities have gotten too much, it is a
fiasco, it is a false argument, and I hope when we debate this
affirmative action that we will have more people coming to the floor
coordinating and joining in with us to be able to say that the goodwill
of the American people is that all the doors of opportunity should be
opened and we should not rest until that is the case.
I am not here to argue for discrimination against the white male; far
be it from me. The doors should be open for all of us to access, and in
order for that to occur, the affirmative action programs around the
country are designed to effectively provide aspirations, goals, not
set-asides, not quotas, but goal aspirations so that we can ensure that
that occurs.
We find ourselves in a climate of turning the clock back. Here in
Texas we have another case that was just rendered dealing with the
Houston Contractors Association versus Metro. That is a transit agency
in Houston. Metro, whose program has been authorized and confirmed by
the Department of Transportation, a program that is not unequal, that
provides an even goal for women, for African-Americans, for Hispanics,
and Asians and those economically disadvantaged, a program already
given the approval as a DBE program by the Department of
Transportation. The Houston Contractors Association in contrast gets 80
percent or more of the contracts rendered by Metro.
We have a community in the Houston area of almost a million
minorities, some 600,000-plus African-Americans, some 600,000
approximately, well, plus Hispanics, and yet we have a lawsuit
challenging a sour-grapes lawsuit because, in fact, the facts will
point out that Metro was prepared to resolve some of these issues that
the Houston Contractors had concern with in 1996, March 1996. What did
they do? Run to the courthouse.
Here we have an opinion by the district court judge which has been
declared as one of the most far-reaching opinions, has nothing to do
with the cause and the issue, and, in fact, has been noted by the
Department of Transportation as a wrong-headed decision primarily
because they have sent a letter to Metro indicating that if your
program is as we believe it to be, a goals program, only aspiring
program, then your program is the kind of program we approve, and if
you do not utilize that program you will lose Federal funding, you will
hurt the citizens of Houston in the tax dollars they have sent to
Washington, we will lose the Federal funding because you are not
complying with the DBE program as approved by the Department of
Transportation.
They also went on to say that if you have a set-aside program, then
that should be eliminated, and, of course, Metro does not have a set-
aside program, and so this opinion becomes ludicrous. If a government
has as a part of its legitimate authority the redress of social ills,
which Metro does not, it may seek remedies for the consequences of past
governmental and individual wrongs, but its programs must address the
past ills.
Mr. Speaker, I know what is trying to be said here, but Metro is a
governmental agency, a quasi-governmental agency. I might ask that if
that is the case, if it is a quasi-governmental agency and governmental
agencies along with the private entities and this whole community,
meaning America, has been discriminatory, then it is the responsibility
of Metro, which receives Federal funds, to correct the past ills. And
those past ills involve the whole idea of insuring that people have an
equal right to justice, an equal right to access what is transpiring,
and that is to secure for the American people, which includes
minorities, the right to access contracts, education, and jobs.
Affirmative action simply does that. And I am quite disturbed that we
have now this attitude, this siege, if you will, where we now want to
undermine the opportunities for minorities, minorities to do
contracting business. And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, those businesses
hire minorities, create job opportunities lacking in our communities.
I am devastated that we would want to undermine an economic aspect of
inner-city communities, and that is minority contractors who, in fact,
are qualified and, as I said earlier, you would not try to recruit
minority contractors to lay pavement, or to build a building, or to fix
a pothole. You would not want to do that with individuals who have no
skills. So this ``make way'' argument that it does not happen to help
minorities who are poor, it does help those minorities who are hired,
then trained, and they learn on the job by way of being hired by
minority contractors.

{time} 1115

There is a trickle-down effect. There will be none, of course, if we
continue this siege upon affirmative action.
It is important, then, that the Dole-Canady legislation, in its form
as it is today, be soundly defeated. It is important as well that this
legislative body take up the moral cause of providing opportunity for
all Americans. They opportunity, of course, is to declare that
affirmative action is, in fact, a viable tool to be utilized by those
of us who believe in government effectively opening the doors for all
people.
The cases, Houston Contractors versus Metro, dealing with minority
opportunities for contracting, the Hopwood decision dealing with
education, are wrong on the law and should be corrected by this
legislative body and not perpetrated by the Dole-Canady legislation.
I see the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who is one who has faced
the issues dealing with redistricting. In fact, as I indicated, in the
case of North Carolina, they had not seen an African-American coming
from North Carolina for some 70 years, after 1901, when George White
left the U.S. Congress. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has been a
very effective fighter for her constituents on all issues, from minimum
wage to welfare reform, and to providing opportunity for young people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.
Clayton], dealing with this whole issue of affirmative action, and
particularly redistricting, that we face in the U.S. Congress.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas
for holding and organizing this special order so that we could expand
the understanding and the thought behind the whole issue of
redistricting, and also to add my comments.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just give some overview about what is involved
in this.
Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my statement by saying we are at a
critical point in the history of this Nation. There is no more
fundamental and important right than the right to vote.
Every other right that we have is dependent upon the right to vote.
Yet, today the voting rights of millions of Americans in several
States, including my State of North Carolina, hang in the balance.
That is why I am pleased to join with Congresswoman Jackson-Lee this
evening to offer my perspective on the current redistricting fight and
its impact on the voting rights of the citizens of my congressional
district.
This morning, I want to first discuss the history of the case of Shaw
versus Hunt, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 5,
1995, and, we are now awaiting the decision in that case.
I then want to share with my colleagues some important facts about
the case, present a summary of the arguments our side made in the case
and conclude with some of my thoughts about this issue.

history of the case

The redistricting plan that was before the Supreme Court in December,
was adopted by the North Carolina General Assembly in January 1992.
The predecessor case of Shaw versus Reno, was decided by the Supreme

[[Page H4408]]

Court in 1993. The SupremeCourt sent Shaw versus Reno, back to the
district court in North Carolina.
The district court, on August 22, 1994, upheld--upheld, Mr. Speaker--
the congressional redistricting plan, reasoning that it was narrowly
tailored to further one or more compelling State interests. The
district court's decision was appealed.
In June 1995, when the court decided the case of Miller versus
Johnson, ruling against Georgia redistricting--dismissing for lack of
standing on Louisiana--the court also decided to hear the Texas and
North Carolina case, and that is why we were before the court again in
December of last year.

important facts

It should not escape our attention that African-Americans make up
just 50.53 percent of the voters in the my district, the First
Congressional District.
African-Americans make up just 53.54 percent of the voters in the
12th District, the other North Carolina district in contest.

summary of our argument

We were able to make the same argument that prevailed initially in
the Louisiana case, Congressman Field's case, inasmuch as the
plaintiffs lack standing in the First Congressional District because
they do not live there.
In the 12th, we were able to argue that most of the plaintiffs do not
live there, and the two that do lack standing because they did not
allege race as a factor.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important
point. I want to focus on what this body is about. It is about
representation. It is about Members being able to represent their
constituents. I have not heard one constituent, when we go home and
they argue about the shape, so much as questioning your representation.
In these lawsuits, I would ask the gentlewoman, have you had
constituents maybe that you see in your townhall meeting or that you
interact with when you go home, run to the courthouse to be part of
this because they say, ``Well, Congresswoman Clayton is in a funny
drawn district''? Are those the issues your townhall constituents ask
you about, or are any of them, the kind of people you see day to day
who need help on the minimum wage, are they the kind of people who you
see running to the courthouse on these cases?
Mrs. CLAYTON. In fact, the issue seldom comes up. The issue is an
issue when the news media brings it up or it is an issue in court. But,
by and large, the constituents want to know that you care about them.
By and large, constituents want to think that you are fair. By and
large, constituents want to think that you have their interests at
heart. So it is not an issue whether my district is a large district or
my district is beautifully shaped. Those who are in my district, most
of them are very pleased to be in my district.
However, it is a large district. I will share with you, I will be the
first one to say that I have a very large district. The reality is that
I live in a rural area. The reality is also my predecessor before me
had a large district. It had nothing to do about trying to respond to
the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is just the sparsity of the population,
that if you are going to have a one man-one vote equal representation,
in order to have the same number of people in my district as you would
in a district around Raleigh and Durham, you had to have a lot of
counties. So there was a reason for the largeness of my district.
Most people in my district understand that we are a rural district,
because of the vastness of the land and the way we live. But people are
concerned if I understand the nature of my district, if I understand
the needs of my district.
Mr. Speaker, regarding the redistricting issue, more importantly, we
argued, the redistricting plan should not be disturbed because race did
not predominate over all the other redistricting goals. There are
compelling State interests, we argued, which justify our redistricting
plan:
Compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because the
factors required by prior court decision had to be met.
Compliance with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because the
General Assembly determined that the Justice Department's objection to
their first plan was meritorious.
The State has interest in remedying the effects of current racial
discrimination.
We also argued the redistricting plan created districts narrowly
tailored to approximately remedy the voting dilution harm to African-
Americans without unduly burdening the rights of other North
Carolinians.

some thoughts

As a result of the Supreme Court hearing, I remain confident that the
district I represent, the First Congressional District in North
Carolina, should be upheld and should not be affected by the Court's
decision in Miller versus Johnson.
Nearly 100 years have passed from the time North Carolina last
enjoyed minority representation in Congress following the end of the
term of Representative George Henry White.
That is because historically poll taxes, property requirements, and
grandfather clauses, combined with scare tactics, to systematically
exclude African-Americans from Congress, beginning in 1870.
It is my hope that in 1996, many current African-American Members of
Congress do not face the same fate that Representative White faced in
1901--the last of 40 African-Americans elected to Congress over a
quarter of a century.
It seems to me that the Court should not use the Constitution--the
very document that gives us rights--to take those rights away.
It is my belief that my congressional district, as currently drawn,
does withstand the standards that have been set out by the Supreme
Court.
But, at stake in these cases is more than congressional seats. City
and county officials, State legislatures, and even local school boards
will be affected by this decision.
America has always stood for one standard of justice, and the Court
should support that basic premise of our democracy.
This struggle will go on. It does not end here.
Over the years, Americans have greatly sacrificed in defense of the
right to vote.
African-Americans and others have withstood fire hoses, billy clubs,
and vicious dogs to gain and preserve their right to vote.
Today, with these current attacks on voting rights, groups of
individuals may be discouraged and led to believe that they may not be
full participants in our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I would offer that this is a great democracy. This
democracy is great both for its weaknesses and its differences as it is
for its strengths. Why I say that, we may differ as to how we have
representation, but we must find ways to include everybody. America is
divided on this issue. Fortunately, our Constitution embraces, indeed
encourages, differences.
So regardless of how the Supreme Court decision will come out in
June, as we expect it, I expect I will continue to represent my
district. I believe in this democracy, and I think the courts will
finally uphold the fundamental principles of this democracy. Fairness
and equal opportunity to represent their constituents is a fundamental
right of this democracy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from North Carolina for her very eloquent presentation and
eloquent conclusion. I appreciate her explanation that our districts
are so diverse. She represents a rural community, and the nature of its
configuration is based upon the need for one man-one vote, and the need
to have representation of people who live in rural communities. That is
the misdirection, if you will, of some of the decisions that have
previously come down. It is to not understand that even minorities are
not in like situations.
I am very proud to say that the 18th congressional district that I
represent may be configured as such so that we could have included an
opportunity for Hispanics to be represented in my neighbors' district,
District 29; likewise, District 30, to allow for the first time in the
history of Texas for Dallasite African-Americans to be represented in
the State of Texas since reconstruction. That election, the first time
that someone was elected was in 1992.

[[Page H4409]]

So when we begin to understand the facts of the basis of the redrawn
districts that are labeled majority-minority districts, I hope all
America, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina did say, will applaud
what America stands for. Its stripes and stars stand for inclusion.
That inclusion, Mr. Speaker, would include, if you will, a recognition
of human capital.
One, we do not want our citizens paying high gasoline prices. We want
to be able to invest in them.
Two, we want to ensure the fact that those who make only $8,000 a
year get an increase in minimum wage.
Three and four, Mr. Speaker, if you will, that affirmative action and
the redistricting process that has opened the doors to African-
Americans, Hispanics, women, and other ethnic minorities, would end the
basis upon which many of us have been discriminated against.

{time} 1130

Slavery was real. It existed. Let us work together to ensure that we
never go back, that we have representation in the U.S. Congress and
that our children, our businesses, our men and women have opportunity
for jobs and contracts and education.

____________________