[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.

                          ____________________