[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5472-H5478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A MESSY DAY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized
for 60 minutes.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, it has been a messy day here in the House of
Representatives. Today is July 17. We are certainly midway through the
work of this first year of the 105th Congress, and it was most
unfortunate that we started the day by pulling a bill which would have
reauthorized vocational education assistance, and stopped the forward
movement of that bill because there was an amendment on the bill which
called for a retention of provisions in the bill which would have
encouraged local governments and local education agencies to continue
to emphasize vocational-technical education for women.
It was most unfortunate that with the overwhelming support that that
amendment seemed to have, which merely wanted to continue what was
going on already, that it led to the majority suddenly pulling the bill
from the floor and refusing to let the House work its will on a bill
which would have provided fair treatment for women in vocational
education and technical education programs. In an era when technical
education is very much in order, and women certainly can do as well as
men in some of the high tech areas that offer the most opportunities
for the future, the highest pay, we are not willing to have our own
Vocational Education Assistance Act reflect the fact that we want
maximum opportunities for women.
So that was an unfortunate start of the day. It has been an
unfortunate week in that same manner.
Two days ago we refused to allow the House to work its will on a
vote, up or down, on the National Endowment for the Arts. The National
Endowment for the Arts seems to upset a small band of Members in the
House of Representatives. They insist on harassing and pursuing the
National Endowment for the Arts, despite the fact that the overwhelming
majority of the American people support the National Endowment for the
Arts and support the National Endowment for the Humanities,
overwhelmingly.
And the Members of Congress, if given a chance to vote yes or no on
the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, would certainly
keep its funding at the present level. We were not allowed to do that.
This is a week that the majority chose to use its overwhelming powers,
because it is the majority, to manipulate the process, and by one vote
we lost on a procedural vote that would have given us the opportunity
to vote up or down on that important matter.
Later on today we also experienced the intense annoyance and anger of
the minority, the Democrats in the minority of the House, because in
the agricultural appropriations bill that was about to come up, the
same kind of treatment we had received in some other bills this year
and in the NEA vote was being manifested. The ranking member of the
agriculture subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the
ranking Democrat was not allowed by the Committee on Rules to present
an amendment that she had requested.
The power of the majority is certainly great enough to stop on this
floor most of what they want to stop and to promote and push what they
want to push, past it, but we ought to at least have the opportunity to
go on record on certain votes, and we are being denied that. So we had
a very messy end to the day, at a point where really we do not have
much time left before we adjourn on August 1st.
We are moving to pass appropriations bills. Appropriations bills are
the most important bills, probably, that we pass, in that they are the
ones that provide the funding to keep our government activities going,
and we are going to be rushing through those things in the next 10
working days of Congress.
We also have in the background negotiations going on which are very
important, vitally important negotiations on the expenditure plan that
was passed by both Houses, negotiations on the tax package. That is
ongoing.
We know that those important processes are in the works, and worry
about the fact that we are going to be pushed against the wall and
stampeded at the last minute on those packages if we do not change the
way this House operates. The majority does not, again, respect the will
of the minority.
There is another problem also beyond the procedural questions, and
that is, I lament the fact and a number of my colleagues lament the
fact that the tax and expenditure package, the appropriations bills, as
they come up are zeroing out or refusing to even discuss and consider
certain important matters that ought to be on the agenda. In this 105th
Congress, when we enter a situation where we started out with a lot of
talk about bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of education,
I suppose one of the most disappointing absences is the fact that the
education initiatives that have been proposed have been watered down so
and some are not even on the agenda.
The most important, disappointing absence, in my opinion, is the one
related to the school construction initiative. That is not even in the
tax package or the expenditure plan which the President and the two
Houses are negotiating now. We are grateful for the fact that the
President at least has kept the school construction initiative alive by
listing it among his priorities. The trouble is that the President has
a long, long list of priorities, and we wonder how high on the list the
school construction initiative will be.
We also wonder about the fact that the empowerment zones which mean
so much to our urban areas, since nothing else has been offered in the
last 10 years to deal with very pressing problems in our urban areas,
the empowerment zones were considered to be a reasonable answer because
both parties would support it since it was a combination of the private
sector, the government sector and there was a lot of talk about this is
the way of the future, but empowerment zones are not in the package
either at this point, except for the President's priority list.
So I guess we will have to be grateful for the President at least
keeping these things in the discussion. They are not in the House bill
or the Senate bill. Therefore, they would not be on the conference
table. So the fact that the President has tax incentives for school
construction on the list of items for his tax cut proposals, and he has
deductions for K through 12 computer donations on his list, and he has
brownfields empowerment zones and enterprise zones, expansion of these
in his package, we are grateful for that. We are holding on by a
thread.
These are very important matters and I think to shift to the most
important area, that is the area of education, not only the most
important but the
[[Page H5473]]
most universally approved area, the area that everybody agrees we need
some forward movement on by the Federal Government, that area also has
been pushed into the background. It is almost a certainty that very
little is going to happen except in the area of higher education,
because the President has made that his highest priority and certainly
something very new, however inadequate it might be, is going to happen
with respect to higher education.
Our concern for K through 12, however, grows greater because we see
less and less discussion or talk about how to move to provide more
Federal Government encouragement of the improvement of schools, even in
the area that the President, this administration has staked out great
interest, and that is telecommunications, education technology and
computers.
Even in this area the present movement is kind of feeble. They are
going to allow deductions for K through 12 computers. The President has
in his list an allowance for deductions by corporations and businesses
for K through 12 computer donations. About $300 million is proposed to
be allowed over a 5-year period. That is a far cry from what is needed
in this area.
{time} 1800
In other words, education, I had great hopes for because there was
great agreement between the two parties that education should be a
priority. So I thought the fact that education is considered a priority
by both parties would mean that it would be reflected in the tax
package and also in the expenditure package, and it really is
discouraging to find that that is not the case.
Maybe we should not give up hope. In fact, I will not say maybe. I
want to urge all of those who care about education, which is the
overwhelming majority of the American people, not to give up hope,
because we were in worse shape, probably in July 1995 when proposals
were being made that the Department of Education be totally abolished.
At that time proposals were being made to cut certain federally
funded education programs by as much as almost $4 billion. So we held
on, we persevered, we insisted that the will of the people, that the
polls showing the will of the people be honored. And finally, in the
election year 1996, there was a turnaround and education did get a
great deal of attention. Instead of the $4 billion cut that had been
proposed in 1995, there was a $4 billion increase in 1996.
Some people might say, if they are listening, that they have heard me
say this many times before. I cannot say it too often. It was an
amazing feat that the party in power decided in an election year, but
before the election of 1996, to increase funding for education by $4
billion. It was an amazing feat because it represented the triumph of
common sense.
We had been talking all along about the fact that we needed to give
more attention and more funding and more support for education. The
polls had shown it all along, but the leadership, those who were in
charge, refused to recognize it until they were faced with the
possibility of losing an election. And, of course, it is to their
credit that they understood that at the last minute they had to turn
around.
So we had an increase of $4 billion for education programs in the
fall of 1996, which leads me to encourage my colleagues to hold on.
Because in the fall of 1998 we may witness the same kind of
resurrection of an understanding of what the priorities are. We may
witness the Republican majority being born again in 1998. In order to
do that, we have to be diligent. We have to persevere.
We never let up in 1995 and 1996 on the issue of education. We
followed the issue right through the proposals to cut the school lunch
programs, all the way down to the various proposals to cut Head Start,
to cut title I. We brought the issue to the public again and again in
order to let the public know what was happening, and they responded
with common sense that got through to the majority and they turned
around.
Let us stay on the message of the need for a school construction
initiative. Let us stay on the message that it is a small amount
compared to the total need. Five billion dollars is what the President
proposed. Five billion dollars was under discussion for school
construction, mainly in loans, low-interest loans that go to localities
and States. It was not adequate, but it was at least a beginning.
To have that beginning snuffed out is not acceptable. So keep it in
mind. It is a matter of common sense that the deteriorating schools
represent one of our greatest problems. The physical deterioration of
schools is not just a New York problem.
I have talked before about the fact that in New York it is
astonishing that we still have almost 300 schools that burn coal. They
have coal furnaces, and the coal is spewing smoke and substances into
the air, which are toxics, of course, and New York has a high rate of
asthma among young children.
We have a clear correlation between something that is being done by
government-owned buildings, and in this case government-owned buildings
that are a part of a program to help children, which are very
detrimental to the health of children. We have at least 300, almost 300
of 1,000 schools in New York that still have coal-burning burners.
There is an initiative, which I have just read about in the New York
State Legislature, which I want to applaud, to float a bond issue for
school construction. I hope that that moves beyond talk in the
legislature. It is not as much as is needed, but it may be that the
States can prime the Federal Government.
We cannot go it alone. Most States and localities cannot go it alone.
But if there are some initiatives at the State level, it might
embarrass the Federal Government, it might embarrass the majority here
in the House and Senate in order to make them begin to reconsider and
move forward.
But the public, the voters, the people with common sense must
continue to hold on and understand the seriousness of the situation.
There are schools, of course, that have lead poisoning problems, there
are many schools which have asbestos contamination, and there is a
great space problem, which I have enumerated many times here in
connection with New York City. And what happens in New York City is not
so different from other big cities.
The fact that these things are pushed aside is very disturbing,
because it is not a matter of it costs too much money. The $5 billion
over a 5-year period, when compared to other programs, does not amount
to much money. They are almost not even arguing the issue of it is too
much money anymore.
There are philosophical arguments offered, like the fact that if the
Government gives help to States and localities for school construction,
it is an unprecedented intervention and an intolerable intervention
into the local and State government matters. I think that is
ridiculous. Education is not merely a local and State government
matter. Education impacts on everything, including our national
security.
We have gone through those arguments, and we have had a great deal of
involvement of the Federal Government in the jawboning about school
improvement. It is time we continue to increase the resources that are
provided by the Federal Government.
There is no need to worry about the Federal Government taking over
education. At this point the Federal Government only spends between 7
and 8 percent of the total expenditure for education overall. That
includes higher education. So the percentage of the Federal
Government's involvement in local education is less than 5 percent. And
if it was increased greatly, even to 15 percent, it certainly would not
mean that the Federal Government could control what happens in terms of
decisions, or even up to 25 percent.
I advocate strongly that we move in the next 5 years toward a 25-
percent involvement of the Federal Government in education funding.
That would be a radical increase, but it is necessary. Even if we had
25 percent of the expenditures, and 25 percent of the funds were
provided by the Federal Government, it still leaves 75 percent to be
provided by the States and the local governments.
If we want to divide power along the lines of money, that means that
the State and local governments would still have 75 percent of the
power to make decisions. If they have 75 percent of the power to make
decisions, they
[[Page H5474]]
would not have to worry about anybody else. So I do not think the
argument that the Federal Government's involvement in providing
resources means that they would take over or be a detriment to
decision-making at the local level holds any water at all.
What it is, unfortunately, at the other end, is kind of an
abandonment of the issue of the problem of education, abandonment of
schoolchildren, while, at the same time, we are spending enormous
amounts of money for other kinds of things that are far less necessary.
For example, the B-2 bomber. One of the votes that took place last
week, which would be upsetting to most of us, common sense would
dictate that we did the wrong thing, was a vote on the B-2 bomber. The
B-2 bomber is not needed, according to the President. The B-2 bomber is
not needed, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The B-2 bomber is
not needed, according to the head of the Air Force. The person in
charge of the Air Force says we do not need it, the President says we
do not need it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff say we do not need it. Still,
we come to the floor and disregard all of that and vote to keep funding
a B-2 bomber, the cost of which will escalate as they move into
production, and it increases.
My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], stood on
the floor and outlined how we are talking about $28 billion that will
be needed more in the budget in future years at a time when the budget
will be set. And if we are to balance the budget, that means that $28
billion worth of other programs would have to come out of the budget in
order for the B-2 bomber to be accommodated. Despite the fact that we
clearly understood the mathematics and the arithmetic, the B-2 bomber
was voted for continued funding.
So it is not a matter of money, it is a matter of attitudes. And
those attitudes are what we have to confront. The attitudes have
nothing to do with common sense. The attitudes have nothing to do with
scientific reasoning, certainly. They have nothing to do with logic.
Logic would dictate we do not continue to build bombers that military
authorities do not want.
But of course there are some Neanderthal considerations, like the
fact that contracts are given out to factories and manufacturing firms
and so forth who produce the B-2 bombers and they have spread around
the production of the parts in various States and localities. Everybody
sees themselves as having a piece of the pie. Whether the pie is good
for America or not, they have their piece so they vote to continue the
funding of the B-2 bomber, while we do not fund or refuse to provide
even a measly $5 billion over a 5-year period for school construction.
Two weeks ago, I think it was June 28, there was a documentary on
television. It was not national, unfortunately. I think it was a local
television station in New York, Channel 7. I wanted to congratulate
Channel 7 on that excellent documentary. It was just a 30-minute
documentary about Class 104. Class 104 is in some school in New York,
an actual school.
I want to congratulate the board of education for letting Channel 7
come in and film what was going on in the school. It is a first grade
class that is overcrowded, 42 children in a first grade class, and they
were documenting the dilemma or the problems faced by a teacher of 42
children in a first grade class.
Just to move around the room was a problem. And then, of course, they
very sensitively zeroed in on three children, to talk to their parents,
and to get an example of what does it mean to be in this class with 42
children competing for the attention of one teacher.
And it was an excellent production and I urge that my colleagues
contact Channel 7, which is an ABC affiliate in New York, and maybe
they will send a copy of the documentary on Class 104 and what it means
to have children in an overcrowded situation who are that young.
There was one very sensitive young man who was totally lost and
beginning to hate school despite the fact that he had a high IQ, very
intelligent. He was off to the wrong start and beginning to hate
school.
There was another young lady who was very aggressive, and she was
only becoming more aggressive because of the fact that in order to get
the teacher's attention she had to be aggressive and do things that
forced the teacher to pay attention to her. She was doing much better
than the sensitive young man who was not aggressive.
Children should not be put into a position where they have to fight
for the attention of a teacher. That kind of abandonment represents a
kind of institutionalized brutality, a child abuse that is
institutionalized. We know if we put 42 children in a first grade class
it means that children will be kind of brutalized and yet we do it.
I want to make a connection here at this point with another issue,
and that is the issue of the apology that I talked about some time ago
that received a lot of very intense response. The apology that was
proposed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] in a resolution that the
Congress apologize for slavery. It caused a lot of furor.
These issues that are taking place right now in terms of
appropriations and budgeting, of tax expenditures, the abandonment of
certain areas, certain populations, the abandonment of certain
programs, the willingness to run and vote for a B-2 bomber while we
cannot find it possible to vote for school construction, while we
cannot find it possible to vote for empowerment zones. It all relates
to the fact that we have sort of stumbled and lost our way at this
point in America.
There is a connection between the furor, and there was a lot of upset
people about the proposal by the gentleman from Ohio that we apologize
for slavery, that Congress apologize for slavery. I have connected the
two.
And I was shocked to find that a poll cited on ``Nightline'' stated
that more than 60 percent of whites were angry about the idea and said
there should not be an apology for slavery. At the same time more than
60 percent of the blacks said, yes; it was a good idea. Even though it
was not originated by blacks and the Black Caucus is not the sponsor,
it is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and a group of well-meaning
individuals, who deserve to be applauded for what they have done.
It is not a power play, but a very sensible kind of approach to
providing healing and reconciliation in a situation that needs more
healing and reconciliation. But it set off a furor. And the fact that
60 percent of whites in America, their first reaction, and I hope that
that reaction will change, I hope that was the first reaction and that
they will stop and consider and that that will not be the reaction a
few weeks from now, or certainly a few months from now, after more
thought is given to the power of the apology exercise. But the fact the
initial reaction was that way is part of the problem in terms of
decision-making here in the Congress.
{time} 1815
This is a reaction which tells me that people are ready to move to
forget anything related to a special sector of the population. Anything
that you attach to the descendants of slaves, the African-Americans,
anything you attach to them gets hostility. And that is an even greater
argument for having the apology exercised, for having a discussion of
it, because we still are getting this automatic, almost instinctive
hostility:
Why should we do it for the blacks, for the African-Americans? Why
should we have a school construction initiative which is primarily
going to benefit the inner-city communities where African-Americans go
to school? It may not be the indication, but that is the reasoning. Why
should we have a welfare program which really provides jobs and
training and moves people along the road to establishing some dignified
connection with the mainstream economic system? Why should we have that
if it is going to blacks?
That is the underlying current there that needs to be dealt with,
that we still think that there are deserving Americans and undeserving
Americans. And anything that relates to African-Americans, the first
reaction is that they are undeserving Americans; they do not deserve
empowerment zones, they do not deserve school construction initiatives
that might benefit them in education, they certainly do not deserve an
apology. Apology means we have got to recognize the problem.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] did not talk about reparations or
anything complicated, just a apology. But
[[Page H5475]]
the instinctive reaction means that they understand the apology needs
recognition, they recognize that there was a problem, and if they have
a problem, they might have the obligation to seek a solution.
Well, so be it. Apology does mean that we recognize that there was
something that happened in the past that ought to be recognized as a
problem. The impact of that on people in the present is something we
can debate. As we debate it, we may come up with an obligation to seek
a solution to the fact there was a great impact.
Two hundred thirty-two years of slavery had an impact on the
descendants of slaves. I mentioned before that the first impact is that
none of them could inherit anything. Two hundred thirty-two years, from
one year to another, one generation to another, nothing was handed
down.
We know from studies that have been documented that most wealth is
accumulated from inheritance. Big millionaires and lucky guys who find
gold mines and oil fields, that is something else. Most wealth in the
world is generated by one generation passing on to another, handing
them down, sometimes in small amounts. Small amounts accumulate. People
have capital and then invest it.
But if we go back in the genealogy, trace economic genealogy of
people, we will find that those who have the benefit of this, which is
just about all Americans except two categories, they have been the
beneficiaries of inheriting property, inheriting pots and pans, of
accumulating enough to use that as a jump-off point for something else;
and that is the way wealth in America has moved, and most nations have,
moved in the same way. It is passed down from one generation to
another.
The native Americans, of course, who owned the land when the
Europeans arrived here, that is not the case. It was kind of a
reversal. The land was taken away from them in many cases and they
could not pass it down. Certainly the African-Americans whose ancestors
were born in chains against their will, and then they were forced into
labor and the accumulation of wealth, none of that wealth was shared
with them. They were not paid for their labor.
So nothing was passed down for 232 years by African-Americans, the
descendants of a people who, in the long chain of the Nation, could not
pass down that kind of wealth. So it means that we arrive at this point
in history with a deficit that has to be recognized.
All these kinds of complicated issues would not be put on the table
if we recognized that there was a great criminal enterprise called
slavery and it generated these kinds of problems. We can have a search
for a solution now, however, in an atmosphere which is not so tense and
stressful.
We could not propose such an apology after the end of the Civil War.
We could not propose it even 100 years later as we moved into the fight
to end legalized segregation and Jim Crow. But why can we not propose
it now? Why can we not entertain a discussion of apology for slavery
and the implications of it at this point of history?
We are sort of at a pinnacle right now. Consider what is happening
right now in 1997 in America. The stock market, Dow Jones Industrial
index at 8,000, unprecedented activity on the market. The dollar is
stronger than ever before against the yen and mark. We are rated
against our competitors economically, doing much better. Our economy is
outperforming. We have licked inflation. Employment is moving forward
despite the low inflation.
We are on a mountaintop. America is on a mountaintop. We do not have
an evil empire to fight anymore. Peace might exist for many decades to
come or maybe even for hundreds of years. This is a point in our
history where we should not be squabbling about the NEA's funding or
about vocational education not having a provision which takes care of
women and peculiar problems that they have had in the vocational
education area. We should not be squabbling about those things.
We should not be passing legislation which obligates us for billions
of dollars for B-2 bombers, while we at the same time cannot conceive
of the fact that we should have more money available for education in
the form of school construction.
We ought to be able to relax, to use our reason to its maximum. We
ought to be able to relax and have the leaders in Congress listen to
the people. The polls out there show that the people, with their common
sense, still think education is the high priority. I do not think that
they have defense as high as education at this point on the polls.
Nobody is more familiar with the polls than the people who are in the
political leadership here, or we politicians in general. We know what
polls are all about. We listen to polls. And yet the polls that clearly
show the popularity of education and the Federal Government's
involvement in education are being ignored systematically all the time.
Only at election time in 1996 did they bother to listen in order to
save their skins at the polls.
Now that we are a year and a half away from an election, nobody wants
to deal with the problems of education that the rest of the American
people overwhelmingly want to deal with. So we are at a pinnacle, we
are at a very advantageous spot.
Why can we not listen to the polls, listen to the mind of the
American people? Why can we not entertain and even invite a discussion
of very controversial issues that might open the door for
reconciliation and healing?
The whole matter of the apology for slavery is one of those things
that might open the door that takes us forward into the 21st century
with a new kind of mind-set. The present mind-set, as I said before, is
unfortunate when we have 60 percent of whites who automatically think
it is a bad idea.
It is all right for the Germans to apologize to the rest of Europe
for what was done in World War II. It is all right for the Swiss to
apologize to the Jews for their conspiracy with the Nazi government to
take their gold and their deposits away from them. It is all right for
the Japanese to apologize for what they did in Asia. But suddenly the
idea of apologies upsets us a great deal.
I want to just drive this home by reading a very disturbing article
that I read, by a top-flight columnist for the New York Times. I have
read other columnists who also thought the idea of the apology was
ridiculous and attacked it with great passion and vehemence.
Mr. Russell Baker's column of July 1, 1997, in the New York Times
follows in the same vein. Mr. Baker is a brilliant writer, and although
I often do not agree with him, his writing is always entertaining. Mr.
Baker is extremely competent, intelligent, knowledgeable; and that is
why his article is even more disturbing.
I am just going to read a few quotes from Mr. Baker's article about
apologizing, because I find it very, very interesting about these
people who get upset and outraged by the notion that they are being
asked to apologize. I do not know what kind of family values they have
or what kind of upbringing they have.
But I remember very well my mother once told me, after I had stepped
on a little girl's foot as I was rushing to get, I think it was a
church picnic and they had ice cream. I was rushing and stepped on a
little girl's foot and she started crying. I hurt her foot, and my
mother said, ``Go apologize.'' Well, my first thought was, apologizing
is something that is not going to help her. I stepped on her foot. It
is hurting. My apology will not help her at all. I said to my mother,
``I'm sure she's all right. Why should I apologize?'' She said, ``Go
apologize.''
If I had not gone and apologized, I probably would have been sort of
slapped across the mouth or roughed up a little bit, because my mother
would want her child to acculturated in that way to understand
apologizing is part of the process of being a civilized human being. It
is not a time to get into the logic of apologizing will not help her
foot, apologizing will not ease her pain.
But here arguments are saying apologizing will not ease pain, so it
is ridiculous. Do we raise our children that way? But the argument
comes across from a number of columnists that it is ridiculous because
it cannot go back and undo the hurt.
Anyway, let me just do Mr. Baker the honor of quoting from his
article, straight from the New York Times, July 1, 1997. It is entitled
``Sorry About That,'' which is already a little sarcasm introduced. It
is arguing that
[[Page H5476]]
apologizing for slavery would show great sensitivity. ``Why anyone
would propose such an aimless exercise, except to demonstrate great
sensitivity, is hard to say.''
Now, if I had said to my mother, ``Why should I go back and
apologize? All I am doing is demonstrating great sensitivity,'' she
would have thought that she made a great error in the way she raised
me, or she would have thought it was time to get to work disciplining
me to show great sensitivity, part of being a human being. Why do we
want to say it is an aimless exercise? But that is what Mr. Baker says
here. ``Why anyone would propose such an aimless exercise, except to
demonstrate great sensitivity, is hard to say.''
To continue quoting Mr. Baker: ``Both parties to the slave and owner
relationship being long dead, there could be nothing more grotesque
than the generation of white yuppies apologizing for the sins of long-
buried ancestors.''
I do not know where he got the ``generation of white yuppies.'' The
U.S. Congress is not a generation of white yuppies. We are the
government. We are representatives of the government. Everybody is the
government, but we are the spokespersons for the government; the
government that was there in 1776, however different it might have
been; the government that was there in 1865, when the Emancipation
Proclamation was signed. I mean not the Emancipation Proclamation, when
the Civil War ended. This government was there when the 13th Amendment
that freed the slaves was passed. We are still part of the same
government, so I do not know why we suddenly have become white yuppies.
But to continue quoting from Mr. Baker: ``Surely, no sensible
descendant of slave forbearers look on such a spectacle without disgust
for the hypocrisy of it.'' Again, ``Surely, no sensible descendant of
slave forbearers look on such a spectacle without disgust for the
hypocrisy of it.''
Well, Mr. Baker is clearly wrong. Sixty percent of the descendants of
slaves said they thought apologizing was a good idea. According to the
polls that had been reported, 60 percent of the slave descendants, I
being one, see nothing wrong with apologizing.
{time} 1830
We do not look upon it with great disgust. We do not consider it
hypocritical.
But continued Mr. Baker, ``No sensible white American could
countenance it without feeling embarrassed by its shabby
theatricality.''
He may be right, because after all I just told you 60 percent of
white Americans said we should not apologize. I do not know whether
they were worried about shabby theatricality or something else, but he
says it is shabby theatricality that they are worried about.
To continue quoting Mr. Baker, ``Apologizing for the country's past
can only gratify the apologizer's desire to feel good about himself. It
invites the audience to compare his moral tone to that of his
ancestors, so derelict in their respect for humanity, and come out a
winner.''
I do not know what is wrong with having anybody feel good about
themselves if that is the only benefit. I think there are many other
benefits but feeling good about yourself is a first step toward feeling
good about others and reacting to others in a positive way. I have no
quarrel with people feeling good about themselves.
Continuing with Mr. Baker's article, ``It not only enhances the
apologizer's self-esteem, it doesn't cost him anything. This is an
important consideration nowadays when government's chief goal is to
avoid spending money on life's losers so the rest of us will have more
to spend on ourselves.''
I agree with Mr. Baker wholeheartedly. Apologizing does not cost
anything. All the more reason of why we should not hesitate to do it in
my opinion. But he is saying that because it does not cost anything, we
should not do it. There is a lot of contradiction and conflicts here.
We should do things that do cost money. The whole Congress is running
away from doing things that do cost money. I suspect that a lot of
people are afraid to apologize because they think the next step is that
somebody will want some compensatory programs or reparations or those
kinds of things, but not Mr. Baker. If all we did was apologize, of
course, it would be kind of hypocritical, but why not take the first
step and we will take our chances. Let the Congress go forward with the
resolution of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and vote to apologize.
Let there be a first step. It would not hurt.
Continuing with Mr. Baker's article, ``Like every country, the United
States has a lot of history to apologize for. After apologizing for
slavery, we could move ahead to apologizing for what our forebears did
to the Indians.''
I am quoting Mr. Baker. I agree, Mr. Baker, why not go ahead and
apologize for what was done to the Indians? Who would it hurt?
``Was it genocide? No, the word hadn't been invented until it was all
over,'' according to Mr. Baker. ``The words that had Americans
spellbound back then were `manifest destiny.' Destiny had given us a
continent to populate. The Indians were in the way. Destiny demanded
their removal. Such was the argument, anyhow. With that nasty history
now far behind, would an apology not be civilized? Would it not show
modern Indians how much nicer than our forefathers we are?''
``Sorry, folks, for the brutality of our morally inferior ancestors.
If it had been us in charge with our enlightened new age sensitivity,
instead of those immoral old-timers, it would never have happened.''
``Couldn't we garnish the apology with some substance?''
``Come on, guys. Be reasonable. It's too late to give it back.
Anyhow, we gave you a legal crack at the gambling rackets.'' He is
talking to the Indians now.
``Few will quarrel with the government for apologizing to Americans
of Japanese ancestry who were put in concentration camps during World
War II. Since many who had suffered this monstrous assault are still
alive, the apology was not just another piece of posturing.''
In other words, he has introduced the idea of apologizing to the
Indians. Then he ridicules the idea of apologizing to the Indians
because, after all, the people who did the terrible things to the
Native Americans are now dead and we have at least given them a crack
at the gambling rackets through the casinos so why do we not just
forget it.
I think it is most unfortunate that Mr. Baker in this little three
paragraphs is ridiculing the whole idea of diplomacy and negotiations,
the fact that our ancestors might have taken a different route. There
was plenty of land and plenty of everything. The Indians, the native
Americans did not have to be treated the way they were in order for
America to be great. Maybe there is a lot that would have been
different if we had the same sensitivity then that we do have now. Let
us not trample or trivialize our present state of morality and our
sense of what is right and what is wrong, how different it is now from
then. Unfortunately, it came too late in the case of the slaves. It
came too late in the case of the native Americans. But understand that
there was a different option, a different route and the fact that our
ancestors did not follow that route is something that might be worthy
of apologizing for.
We can apologize, however, for the Japanese and the concentration
camps because some of them are still alive. That is kind of weird
reasoning. These things stay alive in the conscience of a people
forever. They never go away. I am going to point that out in a few
minutes from his own examples.
To get back to quoting Mr. Russell Baker, ``Many others are still
alive who lived in that time and admired Franklin Roosevelt, the man
who authorized those camps.''
My father thought Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest man in the
world, that ever lived, except for Jesus Christ, I guess, and I almost
place Franklin Roosevelt in a similar category. I still think he is a
great man, the greatest of all American Presidents. But he made some
mistakes. That was one of the mistakes that he made. Anybody who had to
make so many decisions for such a long period in such a critical and
stressful situation would make mistakes. Franklin Roosevelt made a
mistake. We should apologize as we did officially apologize to the
Japanese Americans for what happened in World War II. That, we can be
proud of.
[[Page H5477]]
``For those of us who in 1942 patriotically accepted the camps as
necessary for the country's defense, the apology forced us to admit
that even we can be terribly wrong when being tossed around by the
storms of history.''
That is the kind of reasoning that Mr. Baker applies to the apology
to the Japanese for the concentration camps in World War II. Why can we
not take the same logic and the same argument and apply it to any
mistake that is made in history and that we as a matter of hindsight
can see was a mistake? What is wrong with saying that slavery was a
grave mistake, a very costly mistake, a very dehumanizing mistake, a
very deadly mistake, but it was a mistake that is worthy of at least an
apology.
Going back to Mr. Baker, ``Where history is concerned, saintly
judgment is rarely possible until a century or two has passed.''
Again I agree with Mr. Baker. ``Where history is concerned, saintly
judgment is rarely possible until a century or two has passed.''
Now he is contradicting himself in a wholesale manner, because if
saintly judgement is only possible after a century or two has passed,
then you can only apologize with integrity, with great vision, after
people are dead for a while. He began his argument by saying why
apologize for something that people did years ago and all of the
victims and all of the oppressors are dead. Now he says you can only
judge after a century or two has passed.
A century or two has passed. Slavery lasted for 232 years but it has
been over for more than a century, almost two centuries. Now it is time
to reflect and to look at the mistakes and to look at the residue of
problems that were caused by the mistakes and to deal with it in a
forthright, scientific, logical, reasonable manner. But he says that on
the one hand because everybody is dead, why deal with it and on the
other hand, you can only pass reasonable judgment until they have been
dead for a century or two.
``England may be infected, too, with the apologizing fad.'' Now he is
back to his sarcasm and his reductio ad absurdum. Apologizing now is
going to be a fad.
``England may be infected, too, with the apologizing fad. There is
talk there of apologizing for Britain's indifference to starvation in
Ireland during the 19th century potato famine.''
Why not apologize for the indifference of a government? The
government made a mistake. A lot of people suffered and died as a
result. So why not apologize.
``Tony Blair,'' according to Mr. Baker, ``the new Prime Minister has
suggested something of the sort might improve relations with Ireland.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous. Northern Ireland is a place where one of the
most passionate events of every year is the celebration of a battle
fought in 1688 between Protestants and Catholics. The Protestants won
and have never for an instant dreamed of apologizing. Ireland seems an
unlikely country to relinquish its hatreds after a dose of feel-your-
pain sensitivity.''
In other words, he is saying if Tony Blair, the new Prime Minister,
should decide to apologize to Ireland for the conduct of the British
Government during the potato famine, then it is ridiculous because the
Irish would never accept it. They do not believe in apologizing. That
is why in Northern Ireland the Catholics are at the necks of the
Protestants and this conflict between Protestants and Catholics rages
on and on.
I would take the opposite approach and say maybe we can break the
cycle if Mr. Blair would apologize first and if it would encourage the
Catholics to apologize to the Protestants or the Protestants to
apologize to the Catholics, maybe you would end this bloodbath in
Northern Ireland. Maybe you would begin to have healing and
reconciliation in the place of violence.
Ireland defies all logic. Northern Ireland defies all logic. All
these people are white and they are at each other's throats. All of
them are of the same nationality, they are all Irish, and they are at
each other's throats. All of them belong to the same religion. They are
Christians. Why does the fighting go on and on in Northern Ireland?
Probably because no one has dreamed of apologizing. Probably because
the old Neanderthal caveman reaction that you must forever and ever
consider your enemy an enemy, you must get revenge, you must seek
justice, probably because that dominates the thinking of the leadership
so much that they cannot entertain another approach.
In South Africa, 25 million blacks were dominated by 4 or 5 million
whites. The blacks have now taken over. They are the majority. They
have control of the government. They chose a different path. Instead of
trying to punish, instead of seeking justice and retribution, they have
a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Their society is taking a very
positive movement forward because they are refusing to go for the old
Neanderthal caveman reaction of I must punish those who did wrong to
me. The whole Judeo-Christian tradition of moving in a different manner
has been accepted in South Africa but not in some other places, like
Northern Ireland.
In Haiti, they have chosen not to go for revenge and justice but to
go for reconciliation. Therefore, Haiti is not adding on top of its
other many economic problems the problem of a new kind of violence
between those who had the upper hand before and those who have the
upper hand now.
To get back to quoting Mr. Baker, to end his article, ``Apologies for
slavery, famine, the Indian wars, can these have any purpose beyond
asserting, in a smugly self-congratulatory way, that we are better
people than our ancestors? They surely cannot undo the past. A lot of
every nation's past is terrible, atrocious, barbaric, but there it is,
inescapable, monumental, the work of our dead ancestors many of them no
doubt hateful, a few perhaps almost as genteel and high-minded as you
and I. Apologizing for them would be as useless and absurd as shaking a
fist at the Atlantic Ocean. It is painful to see them patronized by the
pious sensitivity crowd.''
Anybody who wants to apologize is now a part of a pious sensitivity
crowd. The pious sensitivity crowd is engaged in a fad of apologizing.
This does not take us anywhere but back into the caves. It does not
move our civilization forward at all. Reconciliation is more important
than revenge. That is the lesson that they are learning and South
Africa is illustrating. Haiti. In Bosnia we will not have any forward
movement until they also accept the principle that reconciliation is
more important than revenge. Reconciliation is even more important than
justice. Revenge and justice usually require more conflict and more
bloodshed. Reconciliation and healing require that victims and injured
parties accept the losses of the past and the present as a way of
fertilizing the future with promise and hope.
Of course in the case of slavery, if we do not recognize anything was
done wrong in the past, we cannot complete the healing process. There
is an understanding that is not stated in our culture, in our national
life, that accepts the fact that slavery was wrong. We fought a great
Civil War, and the lives of many white men were lost in the process of
setting the slaves free. We recognized that it was wrong and that
Abraham Lincoln, under his leadership and those who fought in the Civil
War, we have corrected that great national wrong.
{time} 1845
But on the surface we still need to have greater recognition and
discussion of it and not just bury it in our subconscious.
If the descendants of the victims of injured parties can accept their
losses, then certainly those who were the oppressors ought to accept it
and move toward healing and reconciliation. Surely the descendants of
oppressors who inflicted the injuries and the atrocities should be able
to move on to seek reconciliation and healing.
Let me just conclude by saying when Jesus of Nazareth declared that
if a man strikes you on one cheek you should turn the other cheek he
introduced a radical formula for human behavior. Many Christians insist
that this is one instruction they find it hard to follow. It is
unnatural, it is a demand or a command for extreme discipline. Turn the
other cheek is an acceptance of suffering that mutilates one's
masculinity. It destroys one's normal concept of dignity. This is
exalted advice that must have come from outside the Earth, for it
requires that
[[Page H5478]]
honor and common sense be surrendered, traded in for a profile of
pacifist courage which will probably be labeled as cowardly weakness.
The man strikes you on the cheek, then turn the other cheek; we are not
asking that kind of activity, that you engage in that kind of activity
and you have to suffer when you apologize. It is far easier to
apologize than to suffer being struck on the cheek or to carry
someone's bag an extra mile when they ask you to carry baggage the
extra mile.
Instead of Mr. Baker's opposition to apologizing, I propose that in
the style of a Vietnam Memorial Wall we should erect a wall that is
called the International Monument of Apologies. In the past we have
glorified great warriors and conquerors. Now let us lift up and pay
homage to all those who apologize. Let us usher in a new era of
civilization with ceremonies of apologies.
Yes, it is true that most of the apologies will be emotional
symbolism. However, symbols and symbolism are life and death matters
among human beings.
Perhaps at the top of this International Monument of Apologies the
Greeks, who have left us so many other symbols, could lead off with an
apology. Let the Greeks begin by apologizing to the ghost of a Trojan
nation that no longer exists. The Greeks assembled vast war mongering
states, and they marched into Troy, they wrecked the place, and when
they could not win the battle, they abandoned all international
conventions and standards of diplomacy and they tricked the Trojans
into getting inside the wall, and then they massacred the women and the
children, especially all the males, and they ought to apologize for
that. It may be only mythology, it may be fiction, but still it would
symbolically lead off the apologizing.
Let the Italian Government apologize for the destruction of the
ancient land of the Jews and dispersal of their population by the
Romans. Let the Italian Government apologize for what Nero and the
citizens of ancient Rome did to the early Christians. Let the Spanish
and Portuguese apologize for their initiation of the Atlantic slave
trade, African slave trade. Let all the nations who participated in
slave trade apologize. Let the British apologize for the open war
against the Chinese. Let the Japanese apologize for Pearl Harbor. All
the nations of ages.
You know, why not go forward and build a new kind of civilization on
apologizing? There is nothing wrong with having a great wall of
international apologies for us to come and contemplate what our
Governments have done in the past and are willing to own up to in the
present.
Let us take our civilization to a new dimension. We readily go to
Mars and we land on Mars and applaud the technology and science and how
radical that is. Let us in the area of human behavior strike in a new
direction. Let us follow the precepts of Judeo-Christian religion. Let
us look at that turn the cheek proposition. Let us look at it and build
on it and understand that reconciliation and healing are more important
than revenge and justice. Let us understand what the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall] is trying to do. He is trying to open the door a little
wider. Apology comes first, and after that acknowledgment, recognition,
more reconciliation and more healing.
Our society as a whole and our whole decision making process are on
social issues and critical educational issues will all benefit if we
recognize that nothing is lost by beginning with a process of
apologizing. We have conquered overwhelming external enemies, and now
it is time to grow again in America. The stock market and the evidences
of prosperity are at an all time high. This is a time for us to strike
out for a new moral high ground, a new moral high ground which would be
beneficial to all of us in America and to the whole world.
____________________